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-00576, N.D. Ill., 01/19/2026
• Venue Allegations: Venue is based on allegations that the defendants operate interactive e-commerce stores that directly target and make sales to consumers in Illinois.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that numerous e-commerce store operators infringe a design patent covering the ornamental appearance of a footwear upper associated with its UGG brand.
• Technical Context: The dispute centers on the ornamental design of consumer footwear, a market where distinctive visual appearance can be a significant driver of brand recognition and commercial value.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint is structured as an action against a large number of unidentified e-commerce operators, alleging they use aliases and other tactics to conceal their identities and coordinate their activities, which may present unique challenges for discovery and enforcement.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2019-11-08	’161 Patent Priority Date (Application Filing)
2021-08-10	’161 Patent Issue Date
2026-01-19	Complaint Filing Date

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Design Patent No. D927,161 - *"Footwear upper"*

• Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D927,161, "Footwear upper," issued August 10, 2021 (the "’161 Patent").

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: Design patents protect the novel ornamental appearance of an article of manufacture rather than a functional solution to a technical problem. The ’161 Patent seeks to protect a specific aesthetic design for a footwear upper to distinguish it in the marketplace.
• The Patented Solution: The patent claims the ornamental design for a footwear upper, as depicted in its figures (’161 Patent, Claim). The claimed design features a low-cut, boot-style upper with a distinct wrap-around ankle band, a vertical seam running down the heel, and a rear pull tab (’161 Patent, Figs. 1-5). Crucially, the patent’s description clarifies that the broken lines in the figures, which depict the sole of the footwear, "represent portions of the footwear that form no part of the claimed design" (’161 Patent, Description). This explicitly limits the protected design to the upper portion only.
• Technical Importance: The complaint alleges that such distinctive designs are broadly recognized by consumers and are associated with the quality and innovation of Plaintiff's UGG brand products (Compl. ¶7).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The ’161 Patent contains a single claim for "The ornamental design for a footwear upper, as shown and described" (’161 Patent, Claim).
• The core visual elements of the claimed design, depicted in solid lines in the patent's figures, include:
  • The overall shape and configuration of the low-cut footwear upper.
  • A band element that wraps around the ankle area.
  • A vertical seam element on the rear of the upper.
  • A pull tab element attached at the top of the rear seam.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused instrumentalities are footwear products ("Infringing Products") offered for sale, sold, and/or imported by the Defendants through various e-commerce stores operating under multiple "Seller Aliases" (Compl. ¶¶3, 9).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that Defendants operate "fully interactive, e-commerce stores" on platforms such as PayPal and Amazon, which target U.S. consumers and appear to be authorized retailers (Compl. ¶¶2, 11, 14). The relevant functionality is the sale and distribution of footwear that allegedly embodies the patented design (Compl. ¶24). A table within the complaint presents multiple views of the patented design to establish the visual appearance being asserted (Compl. p. 4).
• The complaint frames the accused products as part of a widespread effort to trade on the reputation and goodwill of the Plaintiff's UGG brand by selling unauthorized products with infringing designs (Compl. ¶3).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not contain a detailed claim chart. It alleges that the Defendants' "Infringing Products" infringe the design claimed in the ’161 Patent because they are visually substantially similar to the claimed design (Compl. ¶24). The infringement test for a design patent is whether an "ordinary observer," familiar with the prior art, would be deceived into purchasing the accused product, believing it to be the patented design.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A primary issue for the court will be the scope of the claimed design, specifically the effect of the disclaimed sole shown in broken lines (’161 Patent, Description). The infringement analysis must focus solely on the visual similarity of the accused products' uppers to the solid-line portions of the patent figures, irrespective of any similarities or differences in the soles.
  • Technical Questions: A central evidentiary question will be whether the accused products are "substantially the same" as the patented design from the perspective of an ordinary observer. This requires a visual, side-by-side comparison of the accused products with the figures in the ’161 Patent. The complaint does not provide images of the accused products, referencing them only in an unattached exhibit, which prevents a detailed comparison at this stage (Compl. ¶3).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In design patent litigation, the "claim" is understood to be the visual design itself as depicted in the drawings, rather than a set of text-based terms requiring construction. The key interpretive question relates to the scope of the design as defined by the patent figures and description.

• The Term: "The ornamental design for a footwear upper."
• Context and Importance: The central issue for claim scope is determining precisely which visual elements are protected. The distinction between solid and broken lines in the patent drawings is dispositive for this analysis. Practitioners may focus on this distinction because it defines the boundaries of the claimed design and, therefore, the infringement analysis.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim is for a design applied to a "footwear upper" generally, not one limited to a specific material, color, or method of manufacture, potentially allowing it to cover a range of products that embody the claimed shape and configuration (’161 Patent, Title; Claim).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent specification provides an explicit limitation on the design's scope, stating that "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 excludes the sole of the shoe from the scope of the protected design, meaning that only the ornamental features of the upper are relevant for the infringement inquiry.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not contain a formal count for indirect infringement, but the prayer for relief requests that Defendants be enjoined from "aiding, abetting, contributing to, or otherwise assisting anyone in making, using, offering for sale, selling, and/or importing" the Infringing Product (Prayer for Relief ¶1(b)).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants' infringement was willful (Compl. ¶21). This allegation appears to be based on the assertion that Defendants knowingly and willfully offered for sale a product that infringes the "UGG Design" and engaged in tactics to conceal their identities, such as operating under multiple aliases and using offshore accounts (Compl. ¶¶10, 16, 19, 20).

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

The resolution of this dispute will likely depend on the court's consideration of the following key questions:

• A core issue will be one of visual comparison: from the perspective of an ordinary observer, is the ornamental design of the uppers of the accused products substantially the same as the design claimed in the ’161 Patent? The outcome will depend on visual evidence that is referenced but not included in the complaint itself.
• A significant practical question will be one of enforcement and remedy: assuming infringement is established, can the Plaintiff effectively identify, serve, and secure a meaningful remedy against the numerous, allegedly foreign-based and anonymous Defendants who are accused of employing tactics specifically to evade legal accountability?