Case Overview

The Parties

The Patent at Issue

At the center of this action is **U.S. Design Patent No. USD927,161S** (Application No. 29/712,480). Unlike utility patents, which protect functional innovations, design patents under 35 U.S.C. § 171 protect the ornamental or aesthetic appearance of a product. USD927,161S covers the distinctive visual design of UGG-branded comfort-leisure footwear — the precise silhouette, surface ornamentation, and overall visual impression that distinguishes authentic UGG products in the marketplace.

The accused infringing products were footwear items sold through the nkadjor_shoes online storefront — products alleged to incorporate or substantially imitate the ornamental design claimed in USD927,161S. In design patent infringement analysis, courts apply the **”ordinary observer” test** (Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, Inc., Fed. Cir. 2008), asking whether an ordinary purchaser, familiar with prior art, would be deceived into believing the accused product is the same as the patented design.

The Verdict & Legal Analysis

Outcome

On July 16, 2024, Chief Judge Gottschall entered a minute order closing the case **pursuant to Deckers’ notice of voluntary dismissal** filed under FRCP 41(a). The dismissal was entered **without prejudice**, with an express provision granting Deckers **leave to reinstate within 270 days** — establishing a reinstatement deadline of **April 11, 2025**. Per the court’s order, failure to move to reopen by that date would result in automatic conversion to a **dismissal with prejudice**, effective April 12, 2025, without further court action.

No damages award, consent judgment, or permanent injunction was publicly entered on the docket based on available case data.

Legal Significance

The voluntary dismissal without prejudice is a recognized litigation tool in Schedule A enforcement campaigns. Plaintiffs in these actions frequently obtain a **temporary restraining order (TRO)** early in the case — freezing defendant assets or securing platform takedowns — and then dismiss once the commercial threat has been neutralized or a private resolution has been reached. While the specific resolution terms here are not publicly disclosed, the 74-day duration and absence of defense counsel are consistent with this enforcement pattern.

This case does not generate binding precedent, but it illustrates several noteworthy dimensions of contemporary design patent enforcement:

• • **Design patents as enforcement tools**: USD-prefix design patents have become primary weapons in anti-counterfeiting litigation, particularly in footwear, fashion, and consumer electronics.
• • **Schedule A litigation mechanics**: The Northern District of Illinois has developed a functioning procedural framework for multi-defendant anonymous seller actions, including sealed Schedule A filings, expedited TRO hearings, and asset freezing.
• • **Voluntary dismissal as strategic endpoint**: A dismissal without prejudice preserves the plaintiff’s right to reassert claims — useful when a settlement agreement contains ongoing compliance obligations or when defendants are difficult to serve.