Skechers USA Inc v. Easy Spirit LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Skechers U.S.A., Inc. (Delaware) and Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II (Virginia)
  • Defendant: Easy Spirit LLC (Delaware) and Marc Fisher Holdings LLC (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Shapiro Arato Bach LLP; Irell & Manella LLP
• Case Identification: 1:26-cv-00755, S.D.N.Y., 01/28/2026
• Venue Allegations: Venue is based on allegations that Defendants transact business, offer products for sale at retailers such as Macy's and Nordstrom, maintain corporate offices and showrooms, and employ numerous individuals within the Southern District of New York.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "SOEASY" line of footwear infringes three patents related to "slip-in" shoe technology, specifically the design of a heel counter that facilitates hands-free entry.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue involves the mechanical and material engineering of a shoe's heel structure to allow it to deform for easy foot entry and then recover to provide a secure fit.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendants were put on notice of the asserted patents through filings in a separate, co-pending case, Skechers USA Inc v. Marc Fisher Holdings LLC, et al. ("Rockport Matter"). These allegations form the basis of the complaint's claims for willful infringement.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 12,011,064 - "Footwear Counter for Easier Entry and Removal," issued June 18, 2024

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background section describes the conventional difficulty of putting on athletic shoes, which often requires using hands or a shoehorn to "secure the quarter from collapsing under the heel" '064 Patent, col. 1:23-27 Compl. ¶27
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a specifically shaped heel cup designed to manage deformation during foot entry. The heel cup has a defined geometry, including distinct upper, mid, and lower portions, and is capable of distorting from a first "native state" into a second, lowered configuration under the load of a user's foot, and then returning to its original shape after the foot is inserted '064 Patent, col. 1:34-46 This functionality is achieved through specific geometric features, such as an "S wave" cross-section and defined angles of incline '064 Patent, col. 5:36-52
• Technical Importance: This design aims to provide a reliable, hands-free "slip-in" capability for footwear, enhancing user convenience Compl. ¶3

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 14 Compl. ¶30
• Key elements of independent claim 14 include:
  • An article of footwear with an upper, sole structure, and a "heel cup" attached to the upper.
  • The heel cup is "uniformly molded" with an upper portion, midportion, and lower portion, with the upper portion having a smaller mediolateral length.
  • A heel region with a "rearward facing upper concavity" and a "forward facing lower concavity," where the second depth is greater than the first.
  • The upper portion is capable of distorting from a "first configuration" to a "second configuration" under load and then returning.
  • The upper portion has a "downward incline with a first angle" in the first configuration and an "incline with a second angle" in the second configuration, where the second angle is greater than the first.
  • A "lower region of the central portion extends outwardly" in the second configuration, causing the shoe opening to widen.

U.S. Patent No. 12,336,594 - "Footwear Counter for Easier Entry and Removal," issued June 24, 2025

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: Similar to the '064 Patent, the invention addresses the need to prevent the heel area of a shoe from collapsing during donning '594 Patent, col. 1:24-28 Compl. ¶72
• The Patented Solution: This patent describes a shoe construction that combines a polymer heel cup with other functional elements. It discloses using "at least one reduced thickness region" in the heel cup to provide flexibility, an "interior foam layer" adjacent to the heel cup that is compressible and extends into the shoe opening to provide securement, and at least one layer of elastic material in the upper to enhance fit ('594 Patent, col. 4:14-24, col. 6:6-24; Compl. ¶¶73-74).
• Technical Importance: The invention integrates material science (polymer flexibility, foam compressibility) with structural components (elastic gussets) to create a comprehensive system for easier foot entry and secure wear Compl. ¶3

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1 Compl. ¶77
• Key elements of independent claim 1 include:
  • A shoe with a sole and an upper that includes "at least one layer of elastic material positioned to stretch and create tension."
  • A "heel cup, comprised of polymer material," affixed to the upper, with an upper, mid, and lower portion.
  • An "interior foam layer" adjacent to an interior wall of the heel cup's upper portion.
  • The interior foam layer is "compressible" and "extends into a shoe opening, providing securement of the foot once inserted."
  • The heel cup includes "at least one reduced thickness region providing flexibility to the heel cup when donning or removing the shoe."

U.S. Patent No. 12,285,076 - "Footwear Counter for Easier Entry and Removal," issued April 29, 2025

The Invention Explained

• Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a shoe with a heel cup designed for easier entry, focusing on a combination of geometric and material properties. The technology includes a heel cup with a specific "S wave" vertical cross-section, reduced thickness areas to enhance flexibility, a compressible foam layer to improve fit and securement, and defined angles of incline that change as the heel cup deforms during foot entry Compl. ¶¶104-105

Key Claims at a Glance

• Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts at least independent claim 23 Compl. ¶108
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the accused Warner SOEASY shoe infringes by incorporating a polymer heel cup with the claimed geometry (including the first and second angles of incline), a compressible interior foam layer, and reduced thickness regions for flexibility Compl. ¶¶108-132

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The "Accused Products" are identified as "Easy Spirit" branded shoes in the "SOEASY" collections, with the "Warner SOEASY Slip On Shoe" cited as a specific, non-limiting example Compl. ¶24

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that the Accused Products incorporate a "slip-in" technology that allows for hands-free entry Compl. ¶5 Through text and photographic evidence from a product teardown, the complaint asserts that the Warner SOEASY shoe is constructed with a polymer heel cup, an interior foam layer adjacent to the heel cup, and elastic material in the upper (Compl. ¶¶36, 82, 88). A cross-sectional photograph provided in the complaint shows the alleged heel cup integrated into the rear of the shoe Compl. ¶37 The complaint positions these products as direct competitors to Skechers' own footwear featuring its patented technologies Compl. ¶5

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’064 Patent Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: The interpretation of "uniformly molded" may be a point of dispute. A question for the court could be whether this term requires a single material and density throughout the heel cup, or if it can read on a composite or multi-density structure created in a single molding process.
  • Technical Questions: The infringement case for the geometric limitations—such as the relative depths of the concavities and the change in angles between the first and second configurations—will depend on factual evidence and measurement. The complaint provides annotated photographs to support these allegations, such as one showing the heel distorting under load Compl. ¶53, but the accuracy and methodology of these visual representations may be challenged.

’594 Patent Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A central question will be the construction of "reduced thickness region providing flexibility." The dispute may focus on whether any incidental variation in thickness constitutes a "region," and whether the patent requires proof that this region was specifically engineered for the purpose of "providing flexibility," as opposed to being a byproduct of manufacturing.
  • Technical Questions: What evidence supports the allegation that the accused shoe's "interior foam layer" performs the claimed function of "providing securement of the foot"? The complaint provides an image showing the foam layer being manually compressed Compl. ¶90, but a question may arise as to whether its primary function is cushioning rather than securement.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the ’064 Patent:

• The Term: "uniformly molded"
• Context and Importance: This term describes a key structural characteristic of the claimed heel cup. Its construction is critical because if interpreted narrowly to mean, for example, a single material of uniform density, it might not cover a heel cup made from composite materials or with engineered variations in rigidity, potentially creating a path for non-infringement.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification does not detail a specific molding process, which may support an argument that the term should be given its plain meaning, covering any process that results in a single, integrated component, regardless of material composition.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent states that "a heel cup may be uniformly molded with an upper portion, midportion, and lower portion" ’064 Patent, col. 1:35-36 and depicts it as a monolithic structure (e.g., ’064 Patent, FIG. 1), which could be argued to imply a single, homogenous material formed in one step.

For the ’594 Patent:

• The Term: "reduced thickness region providing flexibility"
• Context and Importance: This term links a physical attribute ("reduced thickness") to a functional benefit ("providing flexibility"). The outcome of the case may turn on whether any thinner area of the heel cup meets this limitation, or if Plaintiff must prove the region was intentionally designed to provide flexibility for donning and removing the shoe. The complaint's use of digital calipers to show a thickness difference of 0.51mm highlights the centrality of this term Compl. ¶94
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification notes that "The thickness of the heel cup 52 may be reduced at various locations," which may suggest that the precise location and degree of reduction are not critical limitations '594 Patent, col. 4:14-15
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification explicitly links the structure to the function: "the thickness T1 may be reduced in certain areas to provide greater flexibility to the heel cup 52 when donning or removing the shoe 12" '594 Patent, col. 4:18-21 This language may support an argument that the patent requires a purpose-driven design, not just an incidental thickness variation.

VI. Other Allegations

• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants’ infringement has been willful based on pre-suit knowledge of the asserted patents. It alleges Defendants had notice of the ’064 Patent at least as of September 9, 2024, and of the ’594 and ’076 Patents at least as of July 31, 2025, from receiving copies of complaints filed in the separate "Rockport Matter" litigation (Compl. ¶67, ¶98, ¶135). The complaint alleges that despite this knowledge, Defendants continued their infringing conduct without seeking a license (Compl. ¶67, ¶98, ¶135).

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

• A core issue will be one of geometric precision: Can the patentee demonstrate through factual evidence that the accused shoe’s heel structure meets the specific, comparative geometric limitations of the ’064 Patent, such as the relative depths of its concavities and the precise change in angles during deformation?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of functional purpose: For the ’594 Patent, does the existence of a thinner area on the accused heel cup, as measured by calipers, satisfy the "reduced thickness region providing flexibility" limitation, or must the court be persuaded that the region was specifically engineered for that function?
• The viability of the willfulness claims will likely depend on the specific contents of the legal documents served in the prior "Rockport Matter" and whether they provided notice sufficiently clear to give rise to an objective risk of infringement that was known or should have been known to the Defendants.