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)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Greer, Burns & Crain, Ltd.
• Case Identification: 1:26-cv-00706, N.D. Ill., 01/21/2026
• Venue Allegations: Venue is based on allegations that Defendants operate interactive e-commerce stores that target and make sales to consumers in Illinois.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that numerous e-commerce store operators infringe a U.S. design patent by selling footwear that copies the patented ornamental design.
• Technical Context: The dispute is in the consumer footwear market, where the ornamental and aesthetic design of a product can be a significant driver of its commercial value and brand recognition.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint is structured as a "Schedule A" action against a large number of often-anonymous online sellers, who are alleged to operate from foreign jurisdictions like the People's Republic of China. This procedural posture is often used by brand owners to combat widespread online counterfeiting and infringement by entities that conceal their identities. The complaint alleges Plaintiff marks its products in compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 287(a).

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. D927,161, "Footwear upper", issued August 10, 2021.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: Design patents do not solve functional problems but instead protect the novel, non-functional, ornamental appearance of an article of manufacture. The goal is to create a new, original, and ornamental design for an article—in this case, a footwear upper—that is aesthetically distinct. (D'161 Patent, Claim).
• The Patented Solution: The patent protects the specific visual appearance of the footwear upper as depicted in the patent's figures. The design features a low-cut, ankle-bootie silhouette with a distinct, slightly flared collar. It includes a vertical side seam and a rear pull tab, contributing to its overall aesthetic. (D'161 Patent, FIGS. 1-7). The claim itself is for the design "as shown and described," making the drawings the primary definition of the invention. (D'161 Patent, Claim).
• 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

• Design patents contain a single claim. The asserted claim is: "The ornamental design for a footwear upper, as shown and described."
• The scope of this claim is defined by the visual elements depicted in solid lines in the patent's drawings, including:
  • The overall shape and proportion of the ankle-height upper.
  • The configuration of the collar around the ankle opening.
  • The placement and appearance of seams.
  • The presence and shape of a rear pull tab.
• Elements shown in broken lines, such as the sole of the footwear, are for illustrative purposes only and do not form part of the claimed design. (D'161 Patent, Description).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

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

Functionality and Market Context

The accused products are footwear items alleged to be unauthorized copies that trade upon the reputation and goodwill of the Plaintiff (Compl. ¶3). The complaint alleges Defendants are part of a network of infringers who operate largely from the People's Republic of China, using tactics to conceal their identities and evade enforcement, such as operating under multiple aliases (Compl. ¶9-¶10, ¶16). The complaint provides several views of the patented design to establish the ornamental features at issue. (Compl. p. 4).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide a claim chart exhibit. The infringement theory is based on the "ordinary observer" test for design patents, 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 alleges that Defendants' products directly and/or indirectly infringe the ornamental design claimed in the patent (Compl. ¶24). The central allegation is that the visual appearance of the accused footwear is substantially the same as the design shown in the ’161 Patent.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Visual Similarity: The dispositive issue will be a visual comparison between the accused products and the drawings in the ’161 Patent. The question for the court will be whether the overall ornamental appearance of the Defendants' footwear is substantially the same as the claimed design.
  • Scope of Protection: The analysis will depend on the scope of the patented design, particularly how it is distinguished from prior art designs. The degree of similarity required for a finding of infringement may be influenced by the novelty and non-obviousness of the claimed design over what came before it.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

Claim construction for design patents differs significantly from utility patents, as the "claim" is primarily defined by the drawings rather than text.

• The Term: The distinction between features shown in solid versus broken lines.
• Context and Importance: This distinction is critical for defining the scope of the patent's protection. Features in solid lines are part of the claimed design and must be considered in the infringement analysis. Features in broken lines are merely environmental context and are not part of the claimed design. Practitioners may focus on this distinction because it clarifies that an accused product need only copy the protected upper (solid lines) to infringe, even if it is attached to a different, non-infringing sole (broken lines).
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The exclusion of the sole via broken lines could support a broader scope of protection, as the patent is not limited to any particular sole design and could read on footwear uppers combined with various different soles.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent specification provides a clear and limiting definition: "The broken lines in FIGS. 1-7 represent portions of the footwear that form no part of the claimed design." (D'161 Patent, Description). This explicitly limits the protected design to the visual features of the upper itself, as depicted in the solid lines of the figures.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes a passing allegation of indirect infringement (Compl. ¶24) and seeks to enjoin "aiding, abetting, [or] contributing to" infringement (Compl. ¶Prayer 1.b). However, the factual allegations focus exclusively on Defendants' own direct acts of making, offering for sale, selling, and importing the accused products.
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants' infringement was willful (Compl. ¶21). This allegation is based on the assertion that Defendants "knowingly and willfully" sell the infringing products and engage in tactics to evade detection, such as participating in online forums to discuss operating multiple accounts and avoiding litigation (Compl. ¶18, ¶20).

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

1. A core issue will be one of visual comparison: From the perspective of an ordinary observer, is the overall ornamental appearance of the footwear sold by the Defendants substantially the same as the design claimed in the ’161 Patent?
2. A key evidentiary question will be one of willfulness: Do the allegations of Defendants' collective efforts to conceal their identities and evade enforcement, such as through the use of multiple aliases and participation in strategy forums, provide sufficient evidence to establish knowing and willful infringement?
3. A central procedural challenge will be one of enforcement: In a case against numerous, unidentified "Schedule A" defendants alleged to be operating from foreign jurisdictions, what practical difficulties will the Plaintiff face in serving process, obtaining discovery, and ultimately enforcing any monetary or injunctive relief granted by the court?