Deckers Outdoor Corp v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Deckers Outdoor Corporation (Delaware)
  • Defendant: The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule “A” (Jurisdiction unknown, alleged to be People's Republic of China or other foreign jurisdictions)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Greer, Burns & Crain, Ltd.
• Case Identification: 1:26-cv-00258, N.D. Ill., 01/09/2026
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendants’ business activities targeting consumers in Illinois through interactive e-commerce stores.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ e-commerce stores are making, using, selling, and/or importing footwear that infringes a U.S. design patent for an ornamental footwear design.
• Technical Context: The dispute is in the consumer footwear industry, where ornamental design patents are a key tool for protecting the unique visual appearance and brand identity of popular products.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not reference any prior litigation, inter partes review proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit. The action is brought against a large group of unnamed e-commerce operators, a strategy often employed to combat widespread online counterfeiting.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2019-11-08	U.S. Patent No. D927,161 Priority Date (Filing Date)
2021-08-10	U.S. Patent No. D927,161 Issued
2026-01-09	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: Design patents do not solve technical problems but rather protect the novel, non-obvious, and ornamental appearance of an article of manufacture. The goal is to create a visually distinctive aesthetic for a product that can be protected from imitation (D’161 Patent, Claim).
• The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific ornamental design for a "footwear upper" (D’161 Patent, Title). The design, depicted in seven figures, features a low-profile ankle boot silhouette with a distinct, slightly flared collar, a vertical seam detail on the side panels, and a pull loop at the rear of the heel (D’161 Patent, FIGS. 1-7). The sole of the footwear is depicted in broken lines, indicating it is not part of the claimed design (D’161 Patent, Description).
• Technical Importance: The complaint asserts that such distinctive designs are broadly recognized by consumers and associated with the quality and innovation of Plaintiff's UGG brand products (Compl. ¶7).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The single claim asserted is for: "The ornamental design for a footwear upper, as shown and described" (D’161 Patent, Claim).
• The essential visual elements of this design claim include:
  • A low-cut ankle boot silhouette.
  • A distinct collar design.
  • Vertical seam details on the side.
  • A rear pull loop.
  • The overall proportions and contours as depicted in the patent figures.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are footwear products referred to as the "Infringing Product" (Compl. ¶3). These products are allegedly sold by Defendants through numerous e-commerce stores operating under various "Seller Aliases" on platforms such as Amazon and Temu (Compl. ¶11).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that Defendants make, use, offer for sale, sell, and/or import footwear that embodies the patented design (Compl. ¶3, ¶24). The complaint provides a table containing figures from the ’161 Patent to illustrate the "UGG Design" at issue (Compl. p. 4). Screenshots allegedly evidencing the infringing activities are referenced as "Exhibit 1," though this exhibit was not attached to the publicly filed complaint (Compl. ¶2).

The complaint alleges that Defendants operate e-commerce stores designed to appear as authorized retailers to unknowing consumers and trade upon the reputation and goodwill of the Plaintiff's UGG brand (Compl. ¶3, ¶14).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide a detailed claim chart. The central allegation is that the accused "Infringing Products" are visually "substantially the same" as the patented design, such that an ordinary observer would be deceived. The table below summarizes the infringement theory by mapping key visual features of the claimed design to the complaint's general allegations.

D927,161 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (Visual Feature from D'161 Patent)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
The overall ornamental appearance of the footwear upper as shown in the figures	The complaint alleges that Defendants sell an "Infringing Product" that incorporates the patented "UGG Design."	¶24	FIGS. 1-7
A low-profile ankle boot silhouette with specific contours and proportions	The "Infringing Product" is alleged to be footwear that embodies the overall visual impression of the patented design.	¶3, ¶24	FIGS. 1, 2, 3
A distinct collar design and a vertical seam detail on the side panels	The complaint alleges direct infringement of the ornamental design claimed in the '161 Patent, which includes these specific features.	¶24	FIGS. 1, 2, 4
A rear pull loop integrated into the heel portion of the upper	The complaint's allegation of infringement encompasses all ornamental aspects of the claimed design as depicted in the patent figures.	¶24	FIG. 5

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: The primary legal and factual question will be the application of the "ordinary observer" test. The dispute will center on whether the overall visual impression of the Defendants' accused products is substantially the same as the design claimed in the ’161 Patent, when considered in light of the prior art.
  • Evidentiary Questions: As the complaint does not contain images of the accused products, a key question is what evidence will show that the products sold by the various "Seller Aliases" are in fact visually identical or substantially similar to the patented design. The success of the infringement claim will depend on a side-by-side comparison of the accused products with the patent figures.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In design patent litigation, formal claim construction is rare, as the figures typically define the claim's scope. However, the parties may dispute the boundaries of the claimed design.

• The Term: "Footwear Upper"
• Context and Importance: This term appears in the patent's title and is the subject of the claim. Practitioners may focus on this term because its interpretation defines the scope of the protected design. The court's understanding of what constitutes the "upper" will determine which features of an accused product are relevant to the infringement analysis.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The solid lines in Figures 1 through 6 depict all visible portions of the footwear article above the sole, including the collar, side panels, vamp, and rear heel portion (D’161 Patent, FIGS. 1-6). This may support an interpretation that "footwear upper" encompasses the entire claimed ornamental design as a holistic unit.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The description explicitly states that "broken lines in FIGS. 1-7 represent portions of the footwear that form no part of the claimed design" (D’161 Patent, Description). This definitively limits the claim to the features shown in solid lines, excluding the sole. An argument could be made that the term "upper" itself has a specific meaning in the footwear industry that could be used to further define the boundaries of the claimed design.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes a passing allegation of products infringing "directly and/or indirectly" and seeks to enjoin "aiding, abetting, [or] contributing to" infringement (Compl. ¶24; Prayer for Relief ¶1(b)). However, the complaint does not plead specific facts to support the knowledge and intent elements required for claims of induced or contributory infringement.
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants' infringement was willful (Compl. ¶21). This allegation is based on the assertion that Defendants "knowingly and willfully" offered for sale products that infringe the "UGG Design" (Compl. ¶20). The complaint does not allege that Defendants had pre-suit knowledge of the ’161 Patent itself.

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

• A core issue will be one of visual comparison: Under the "ordinary observer" test, is the overall ornamental appearance of the accused footwear products substantially the same as the design claimed in the ’161 Patent? The outcome will depend on a direct visual analysis comparing the accused products to the patent's figures.
• A second central question is procedural and jurisdictional: Can the Plaintiff successfully identify, serve, and establish personal jurisdiction over the numerous, allegedly foreign-based e-commerce operators listed in Schedule A? The complaint's structure suggests that overcoming Defendants' alleged use of aliases and offshore operations will be a significant practical hurdle to obtaining and enforcing any judgment.