DCT
1:26-cv-00334
Deckers Outdoor Corp v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations
Key Events
Amended Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Deckers Outdoor Corporation (Delaware)
- Defendant: Tanzhoulonton (Unknown, alleged to be located in China)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Greer, Burns & Crain, Ltd.
- Case Identification: 1:26-cv-00334, N.D. Ill., 01/13/2026
- Venue Allegations: Venue is based on Defendant’s alleged operation of a fully interactive e-commerce store under the alias "tanzhoulonton," which targets consumers in the United States, including Illinois, by offering shipping to the state and accepting payment in U.S. dollars.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s footwear, sold through online storefronts, infringes a design patent related to an ornamental footwear upper design.
- Technical Context: The dispute concerns the ornamental design of consumer footwear, a market where distinctive aesthetics contribute significantly to brand recognition and commercial value.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, inter partes review proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2019-11-08 | ’161 Patent Priority Date |
| 2021-08-10 | ’161 Patent Issue Date |
| 2026-01-13 | Complaint Filing Date |
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 Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: Design patents protect ornamental appearance rather than solving a technical problem. The complaint suggests the design is part of Deckers' effort to create "innovative design" for its UGG brand products, which have become "enormously popular and even iconic" (Compl. ¶6). The patent aims to protect the unique visual appearance of a specific footwear design within a competitive consumer market (Compl. ¶5-¶7).
- The Patented Solution: The patent claims the ornamental design for a "footwear upper" ('161 Patent, CLAIM). The design, depicted in Figures 1-7, features a low-cut, boot-style silhouette with a distinct, padded-look collar, a vertical seam element on the side panels, and a pull-tab at the rear ('161 Patent, FIG. 1-5). The broken lines in the figures indicate that the sole of the footwear is not part of the claimed design ('161 Patent, DESCRIPTION).
- Technical Importance: The complaint asserts that distinctive designs are a key driver of consumer recognition and are associated with the quality and innovation of Plaintiff's UGG Products brand (Compl. ¶6-¶7).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The single claim asserted is for "The ornamental design for a footwear upper, as shown and described" ('161 Patent, CLAIM; Compl. ¶23).
- The essential visual elements of the claimed design include:
- The overall shape and proportions of the ankle-height footwear upper.
- A distinct, raised collar around the opening of the upper.
- A vertical seam detail connecting the front and rear portions of the upper.
- A rear pull-tab integrated into the upper's back seam.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused instrumentality is footwear referred to as the "Infringing Product," which is allegedly made, used, offered for sale, sold, and/or imported by Defendant under the seller alias "tanzhoulonton" (Compl. ¶3, ¶11).
Functionality and Market Context
- The accused product is footwear sold to U.S. consumers through interactive e-commerce stores, including on marketplace platforms such as Temu (Compl. ¶11). The complaint alleges that Defendant’s storefronts are designed to appear sophisticated and use content and images that make it "very difficult for consumers to distinguish it from an authorized retailer" (Compl. ¶14). The complaint includes several figures from the '161 Patent to illustrate the patented UGG Design that the Infringing Product allegedly copies (Compl. p. 4).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint alleges that the accused product infringes the ornamental design of the ’161 Patent, but it does not provide a detailed element-by-element comparison or a claim chart exhibit. The infringement analysis for a design patent turns on whether an "ordinary observer" would find the accused design substantially the same as the patented design. The table below summarizes the core allegations by mapping key visual features of the claimed design to the alleged infringement.
D927161 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (Visual Feature from '161 Patent) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| The overall ornamental appearance of the footwear upper as shown in the patent figures. | Defendant's "Infringing Products" are alleged to "infringe directly and/or indirectly the ornamental design claimed in the UGG Design." | ¶23 | ’161 Patent, FIG. 1-7 |
| The specific shape, contour, and configuration of the footwear upper. | The Infringing Product allegedly embodies the patented design, which is depicted in the complaint via figures from the patent. | ¶3, p. 4 | ’161 Patent, FIG. 1-3 |
| The combination of visual features including the low-cut silhouette, collar design, and side seam element. | Defendant is accused of selling an "unauthorized and unlicensed product... that infringes Deckers' patented design." | ¶3 | ’161 Patent, FIG. 1-5 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central question will be whether the overall visual impression created by the accused product is "substantially the same" as that of the claimed design. The analysis will focus only on the features shown in solid lines in the patent drawings (the upper), as the sole is explicitly disclaimed ('161 Patent, DESCRIPTION).
- Technical Questions: Since images of the accused product are not included in the complaint body (they are referenced as Exhibit 1, which was not provided), a threshold question is evidentiary: what evidence will be presented to establish the precise ornamental appearance of the "Infringing Product" and allow for a direct visual comparison with the patented design?
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
In design patent cases, claim construction is focused on the visual impression created by the drawings rather than the definition of textual terms. However, the scope of the claim itself is a critical determination.
- The Term: "The ornamental design for a footwear upper, as shown and described"
- Context and Importance: The entire infringement analysis depends on the scope of this claim. The court's interpretation of what the drawings "show and describe" will define the protected design. Practitioners may focus on the boundary between claimed features (solid lines) and unclaimed features (broken lines), as any similarities or differences in the unclaimed sole are legally irrelevant to infringement.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim is not limited to any specific material, color, or texture, which may support a broader scope covering products with the same shape and configuration regardless of these other attributes. The title "Footwear Upper" is general and does not limit the design to a specific type of shoe (e.g., a "rain boot" or "slipper").
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's explicit statement that "The broken lines in FIGS. 1-7 represent portions of the footwear that form no part of the claimed design" strictly limits the claim to the upper portion ('161 Patent, DESCRIPTION). The protection is confined to the specific visual configuration and proportions depicted in the seven figures; any significant deviation in an accused design's silhouette, seam placement, or collar proportions could be a basis for a non-infringement argument.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: While direct infringement is the focus of Count I, the prayer for relief requests an injunction against "aiding, abetting, contributing to, or otherwise assisting anyone" in infringing the patent, which suggests a potential, though not separately pleaded, theory of indirect infringement (Compl. p. 10, ¶1(b)).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant's infringement was "willful" and that Defendant acted "knowingly and willfully" (Compl. ¶19, ¶20). The factual basis alleged appears to be the general course of conduct in operating e-commerce stores to sell infringing products, rather than specific knowledge of the ’161 Patent itself prior to the lawsuit (Compl. ¶19).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central legal question will be one of visual identity: Is the ornamental design of the accused footwear "substantially the same" as the claimed design in the ’161 Patent from the perspective of an ordinary observer, such that the observer would be deceived into purchasing the accused product believing it to be the patented one?
- A key evidentiary question will be the presentation of the accused product itself. The outcome will depend on a direct visual comparison between the product sold by Defendant and the design shown and described in the patent's figures.
- The case also presents a significant question of enforcement and recovery: Assuming infringement is found, can the Plaintiff effectively obtain injunctive relief and recover damages from a defendant alleged to be a foreign entity operating under aliases and using tactics to conceal its identity and assets (Compl. ¶10, ¶16, ¶18)?