Deckers Outdoor Corp v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Deckers Outdoor Corporation (Delaware)
  • Defendant: AKA Leo (Unknown Jurisdiction)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Greer, Burns & Crain, Ltd.
• Case Identification: 1:26-cv-00576, N.D. Ill., 01/21/2026
• Venue Allegations: Venue is based on the defendant's alleged business activities targeting consumers in the United States, including Illinois, through an interactive e-commerce store that accepts U.S. currency and has allegedly sold infringing products to Illinois residents.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s e-commerce sale of footwear infringes a design patent related to a footwear upper.
• Technical Context: The dispute is in the field of footwear design, a market where distinctive ornamental appearance and brand recognition are commercially significant.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint is an Amended Complaint filed against a defendant of unknown identity, operating under the seller alias "AKA Leo," who is alleged to reside and operate in a foreign jurisdiction.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Design Patent No. D927,161 - “FOOTWEAR UPPER”

• Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D927161 (“the ’161 Patent”), “FOOTWEAR UPPER,” issued August 10, 2021.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The complaint asserts that Deckers' UGG brand products are "enormously popular and even iconic" and that their "distinctive patented designs" are broadly recognized by consumers (Compl. ¶6-7). The patent protects a specific ornamental design, addressing the need to secure intellectual property rights for a novel aesthetic appearance in the competitive footwear market.
• The Patented Solution: The patent claims the ornamental design for a footwear upper, as depicted in its figures (’161 Patent, Claim). The design consists of the visual characteristics of an ankle-height boot upper, featuring a distinct raised collar around the top opening, a rounded toe, a vertical seam on the side profile, and a pull tab at the rear (’161 Patent, FIGS. 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 alleges that such designs are associated with the quality and innovation consumers expect from the UGG brand, making their unique appearance a significant commercial asset (Compl. ¶7).

Key Claims at a Glance

• Design patents contain a single claim. The asserted claim is for "The ornamental design for a footwear upper, as shown and described" (’161 Patent, Claim).
• The essential visual elements of the claimed design, as shown in the patent figures, include:
  • The overall shape and contour of an ankle-height boot upper.
  • A distinct, raised collar element encircling the top opening.
  • A side profile characterized by a vertical seam extending downwards from the collar.
  • A rear view featuring a fabric pull-tab loop.
  • A front view showing a generally rounded toe box.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentality is footwear referred to as the "Infringing Product" (Compl. ¶3). The defendant, operating under the seller alias "AKA Leo," is alleged to make, use, offer for sale, sell, and/or import this footwear through interactive e-commerce stores on platforms such as PayPal and Temu (Compl. ¶2, ¶11).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that the defendant operates e-commerce stores that are designed to appear to "unknowing consumers" as authorized retailers of genuine UGG products (Compl. ¶14). These stores allegedly target U.S. consumers, offer shipping to Illinois, and accept payment in U.S. dollars (Compl. ¶13). The complaint frames the defendant's conduct as part of a broader pattern of foreign-based operators using aliases and other tactics to sell counterfeit or infringing goods while concealing their identities (Compl. ¶10, ¶15-16).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references an "Exhibit 1" containing screenshots of the infringing product, but this exhibit was not included with the provided court filing (Compl. ¶3). Therefore, a direct visual comparison cannot be conducted. The infringement theory is summarized below in prose.

The complaint alleges that the defendant is selling footwear that infringes the design claimed in the ’161 Patent (Compl. ¶23). 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. The complaint includes a table containing five figures from the asserted patent, illustrating the perspective, side, front, rear, and top-down views of the claimed footwear design (Compl. p. 4). The core of the infringement allegation is that the ornamental appearance of the defendant's footwear is substantially the same as the design depicted in these figures, such that it would confuse an ordinary observer (Compl. ¶23). The resolution of this claim will depend on a direct visual comparison between the accused product and the figures of the ’161 Patent.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In design patent litigation, the claim is understood to be the visual design itself as shown in the patent drawings, rather than a set of text-based limitations. Formal claim construction is therefore rare. Analysis may focus on the scope of the article of manufacture to which the design is applied.

• The Term: "footwear upper"
• Context and Importance: This term defines the article of manufacture to which the ornamental design is applied. Its scope is central to defining what products can infringe. Here, the dispute will likely center on the visual similarity of the designs themselves, not on whether the accused product is a "footwear upper."
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation: The patent's title, claim, and description consistently identify the article of manufacture as a "footwear upper" (’161 Patent, Title; Claim; Description). The figures provide a clear visual depiction of this article. Critically, the use of broken lines to illustrate the sole of the shoe expressly delineates what is not part of the claimed design, thereby precisely defining the scope of the "upper" (’161 Patent, Description; FIGS. 1-7). This provides clear intrinsic evidence for the term's scope.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes passing reference to products that infringe "directly and/or indirectly" and the prayer for relief seeks to enjoin "aiding, abetting, [or] contributing to" infringement (Compl. ¶23; Prayer ¶1(b)). However, the body of the complaint does not contain specific factual allegations—such as providing instructions to third parties—that would be necessary to support a standalone claim for induced or contributory infringement. The allegations focus on the defendant's own acts of making, using, selling, and importing (Compl. ¶23).
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is explicitly alleged (Compl. ¶20). The complaint asserts that the defendant is "knowingly and willfully" selling the infringing products (Compl. ¶19). This allegation may be supported by claims that the defendant uses deceptive tactics, such as operating under seller aliases, to conceal its identity and evade enforcement (Compl. ¶15-16), as well as the allegation that Deckers' authentic products are marked pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 287(a), which can serve as constructive notice of the patent (Compl. ¶7).

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

The resolution of this dispute will likely depend on the answers to two central questions:

1. A core issue will be one of visual comparison: Once the accused product is identified, is its ornamental design "substantially the same" as the design claimed in the ’161 Patent from the perspective of an ordinary observer, giving proper attention to the novelty of the design over the prior art?

2. A key procedural and practical question will be one of enforcement: Can the plaintiff successfully identify and serve the defendant, an entity alleged to be an anonymous foreign e-commerce operator using aliases to evade detection, and, if infringement is found, will any resulting monetary judgment be collectible from an entity alleged to move funds to offshore accounts?