DCT
1:26-cv-00175
Deckers Outdoor Corp v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Deckers Outdoor Corporation (Delaware)
- Defendant: The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule “A” (People's Republic of China or other foreign jurisdictions)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Greer, Burns & Crain, Ltd.
- Case Identification: 1:26-cv-00175, N.D. Ill., 01/07/2026
- Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on allegations that Defendants operate interactive e-commerce stores that target and make sales to consumers in Illinois.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ e-commerce stores sell and import footwear that infringes a design patent covering the ornamental appearance of a footwear upper associated with Plaintiff's UGG brand.
- Technical Context: The dispute is in the highly competitive consumer footwear market, where distinctive ornamental designs serve as a key source of brand identity and commercial value.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, licensing history, or post-grant proceedings involving the patent-in-suit. The action is framed as an enforcement effort against a diffuse network of online sellers who allegedly use tactics to conceal their identities.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2019-11-08 | Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. D927,161 |
| 2021-08-10 | U.S. Patent No. D927,161 Issued |
| 2026-01-07 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. D927,161 - *"Footwear Upper"*
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. D927,161, "Footwear Upper," issued August 10, 2021 (the "’161 Patent").
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The complaint suggests that distinctive product designs are valuable assets in the footwear market and are subject to copying by unauthorized sellers, particularly on e-commerce platforms (Compl. ¶¶ 3, 6-7). Design patents provide a legal mechanism to protect the unique visual appearance of a product from such imitation.
- The Patented Solution: The ’161 Patent does not solve a functional problem but instead protects a specific ornamental design for a "footwear upper" (’161 Patent, CLAIM). The claimed design, illustrated in seven figures, consists of the visual characteristics of an ankle-height bootie, including its overall shape, the proportions of the upper, the appearance of a distinct collar, and the configuration of seams and a heel pull-tab (’161 Patent, FIG. 1-7). The patent explicitly disclaims the portions of the footwear shown in broken lines, limiting the protected design to the upper itself (’161 Patent, DESCRIPTION).
- Technical Importance: In the fashion and apparel industry, a novel ornamental design can define a product's commercial identity and consumer appeal, making its legal protection critical to maintaining brand value and market position (Compl. ¶¶ 6-7).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts the single claim of the ’161 Patent (Compl. ¶ 24).
- The claim protects: "The ornamental design for a footwear upper, as shown and described" (’161 Patent, CLAIM).
- The complaint does not assert any dependent claims, as design patents do not have them.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused instrumentalities are footwear products offered for sale, sold, and/or imported by the Defendants, referred to collectively in the complaint as the "Infringing Product" (Compl. ¶ 3).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges that Defendants operate numerous e-commerce stores under various "Seller Aliases" on platforms like Amazon and Temu to sell footwear featuring the patented design to consumers in the United States (Compl. ¶¶ 2, 11). The complaint asserts that these operations are designed to appear as authorized retailers to consumers but are in fact unauthorized and unlicensed (Compl. ¶ 14). The complaint references screenshots of the alleged infringing activities in an attached "Exhibit 1," which is not included in the provided court filing (Compl. ¶ 2).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint alleges that the Defendants' products infringe the single claim of the ’161 Patent by embodying the protected ornamental design (Compl. ¶¶ 24-25). For design patents, infringement is determined by the "ordinary observer" test, which asks whether an ordinary observer, familiar with the prior art, would be deceived into purchasing the accused product believing it to be the patented design. The complaint includes a table with figures from the ’161 Patent to illustrate the claimed "UGG Design" (Compl. p. 4).
D927,161 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| The ornamental design for a footwear upper, as shown and described. | Defendants are accused of making, using, offering for sale, selling, and/or importing into the United States footwear products that embody the ornamental design claimed in the ’161 Patent. | ¶24 | CLAIM; FIG. 1-7 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The central issue will be a visual comparison between the overall appearance of the accused products and the design claimed in the ’161 Patent. The analysis will depend on the scope of the claim as defined by the solid lines in the patent figures, excluding the sole and other elements shown in broken lines.
- Technical Questions: A key evidentiary question will be whether the Defendants' products are "substantially the same" as the patented design in the eyes of an ordinary observer. The complaint's infringement theory rests on the allegation that the accused footwear shown in Exhibit 1 copies the overall visual impression of the design depicted in the ’161 Patent's figures (Compl. ¶¶ 3, 24).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
For design patents, claim construction focuses on the scope of the claimed design as a whole, rather than on specific text. The analysis is guided by the patent's drawings.
- The Term: "footwear upper"
- Context and Importance: While the claim is for the design "as shown and described," the identification of the article of manufacture as a "footwear upper" is critical. It clarifies that the protected design applies only to the upper portion of the shoe, not the entire article of footwear. Practitioners may focus on this as it cabins the scope of protection and the infringement analysis to a specific component.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim covers the design for a footwear upper, suggesting its application is not limited to the specific type of boot shown but could apply to any footwear upper embodying the same ornamental design.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's description explicitly states, "The broken lines in FIGS. 1-7 represent portions of the footwear that form no part of the claimed design" (’161 Patent, DESCRIPTION). This language definitively limits the claim scope to the features shown in solid lines, preventing the patentee from claiming the design of the sole or other disclaimed elements. The visual details in Figures 1-7 provide the specific contours of the design that is protected.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The prayer for relief seeks to enjoin "aiding, abetting, contributing to, or otherwise assisting anyone" in infringing the patent (Compl. p. 10). The factual basis for this appears to be the allegation that Defendants operate as a coordinated network, sharing tactics and potentially sources of supply (Compl. ¶¶ 10, 18).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants' infringement was willful (Compl. ¶ 21). This allegation is based on the assertion that Defendants are "working to knowingly and willfully import, distribute, offer for sale, and sell Infringing Products" without authorization from Deckers (Compl. ¶ 20).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of visual identity: Applying the ordinary observer test, are the accused products sold by the various Defendants "substantially the same" in overall ornamental appearance as the specific design claimed in the ’161 Patent, considering the scope defined by the solid lines in the patent's figures?
- A key procedural question will be one of enforcement viability: Given that the Defendants are alleged to be a large and shifting group of foreign entities using aliases to conceal their identities, can the Plaintiff effectively obtain and enforce injunctive relief and damages against them through the U.S. court system?