Deckers Outdoor Corp. v. Schedule A Defendants (1:25-cv-04967)
Deckers Outdoor Corporation brought a design patent infringement action in the Northern District of Illinois against anonymous online marketplace sellers, asserting USD927161S covering a proprietary footwear design. The case closed after 135 days via voluntary dismissal, with all defendants disposed of but no merits adjudication on the public record.
Deckers targets anonymous sellers, then exits without prejudice
On May 6, 2025, Deckers Outdoor Corporation — the brand group behind UGG, HOKA, and Teva — filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against a class of unnamed online sellers identified only as the Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations on Schedule A. The sole patent in suit, USD927161S (Application No. 29/712480), is a design patent protecting a specific footwear aesthetic. Schedule A actions of this type are a well-established enforcement mechanism against marketplace infringers, typically sellers operating on platforms such as Amazon, Alibaba, or Temu.
The case closed on September 18, 2025, 135 days after filing, through a voluntary dismissal without prejudice filed pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The notice specifically named Quanzhou Beidelun International Trade Co., Ltd. and associated individuals as the final remaining defendants, and confirmed that all defendants had been disposed of, allowing the case to terminate. No judgment on the merits was entered.
The 135-day duration is consistent with a negotiated resolution or a settlement reached off the record — common in Schedule A enforcement campaigns where individual defendants are often dismissed piecemeal as they settle or become untraceable. The public record does not disclose any financial terms, injunctive relief, or licensing agreement. The without-prejudice dismissal leaves Deckers free to re-file against these or related entities should new infringement activity emerge.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 135 days
135 days — resolved before most Schedule A cases reach default judgment
Voluntarily dismissed: what the Rule 41(a)(1) exit means for both sides
Rule 41(a)(1) ends the case — no merits, no judgment
A Rule 41(a)(1) voluntary dismissal is a plaintiff-initiated exit that requires no court order before an answer or summary judgment motion is filed. It terminates the action immediately upon filing. Critically, no court ruled on whether USD927161S was valid, infringed, or enforceable. The case record is procedurally clean but analytically silent on the substantive IP questions.
Procedural exit — no precedent setPublic record confirms without prejudice — but the distinction matters
This dismissal is expressly without prejudice, meaning Deckers retains the right to re-file the same claims against the same or related defendants. A with-prejudice dismissal would have barred re-filing and functioned as an adjudication on the merits. The public record here is unambiguous: Deckers chose to preserve its enforcement options, which is consistent with a negotiated resolution or a defendant that became unreachable.
Re-filing right preservedDefendants exit without liability — but remain exposed
Quanzhou Beidelun International Trade Co., Ltd. and the other Schedule A defendants face no damages award, injunction, or public finding of infringement from this case. However, the without-prejudice dismissal means Deckers can reassert USD927161S against them. Any continued sale of the accused footwear designs carries renewed litigation risk, and the filing itself may have prompted platform-level takedowns that persist independently of the case outcome.
No liability, but exposure remainsSchedule A campaigns: settlement-driven economics at scale
Schedule A design patent enforcement is a volume strategy. Patent holders like Deckers file against dozens or hundreds of anonymous sellers simultaneously, obtaining early TROs and asset freezes that create strong settlement leverage. The piecemeal without-prejudice dismissals that close these cases typically reflect individual resolutions — financial or behavioural — rather than a single adjudicated outcome. The commercial result for Deckers may be positive even where no judgment was entered.
Likely settlement-driven resolutionFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Deckers Outdoor Corp. | Company | Global footwear brand group (UGG, HOKA, Teva) — holder of USD927161SSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A | Individual | Anonymous online marketplace sellers; final named party: Quanzhou Beidelun International Trade Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Amy Crout Ziegler | Attorney | Counsel for Deckers Outdoor Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Justin R. Gaudio | Attorney | Counsel for Deckers Outdoor Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Justin Tyler Joseph | Attorney | Counsel for Deckers Outdoor Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Thomas Joseph Juettner | Attorney | Counsel for Deckers Outdoor Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Greer, Burns & Crain, Ltd. | Law Firm | Representing Deckers Outdoor Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman | Judge | Illinois Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal notice is unambiguous in its procedural scope: Deckers invoked Rule 41(a)(1) as to the final named defendant, Quanzhou Beidelun International Trade Co., Ltd., and confirmed that all Schedule A defendants had been disposed of. No merits finding was made on USD927161S — neither validity, nor infringement, nor enforceability was adjudicated. For Deckers, the without-prejudice exit preserves full enforcement rights. For the defendants, there is no public finding of liability, but the absence of a merits ruling offers limited protection if Deckers re-files or pursues platform-level enforcement actions independently.
USD927161S — Footwear Design Patent (App. No. 29/712480)
USD927161S is a U.S. design patent protecting the ornamental appearance of a footwear article, filed under application number 29/712480. Design patents under 35 U.S.C. § 171 protect the novel, ornamental characteristics of a product’s visual appearance rather than its functional attributes. For footwear brands, design patents are a critical complement to trade dress rights, offering a 15-year term from grant and a relatively streamlined enforcement posture compared to utility patents. The specific silhouette or surface ornamentation claimed in USD927161S would be determinative in any infringement analysis under the ordinary observer test.
Deckers Outdoor Corporation — the parent of UGG, HOKA, and Teva — maintains an extensive design patent portfolio across its footwear lines. Asserting USD927161S against anonymous e-commerce sellers reflects a deliberate enforcement strategy targeting copycat products that replicate distinctive Deckers footwear aesthetics. For competitors, suppliers, and platform sellers in the footwear sector, this case is a signal that Deckers actively monitors and litigates design patent rights. Any product that replicates the protected silhouette, upper design, or sole profile claimed in USD927161S carries direct litigation exposure in jurisdictions where Deckers has historically filed.
Should you run an FTO analysis against USD927161S?
Any company designing, sourcing, or selling footwear that bears visual similarity to Deckers’ protected designs should treat USD927161S as a live FTO risk. This applies equally to brands developing new footwear silhouettes, manufacturers supplying to the U.S. market from Quanzhou or similar origins, and marketplace sellers stocking third-party footwear that could be accused of replicating the ornamental elements claimed. The ordinary observer test applied to design patents casts a wider net than many product teams expect — a product does not need to be identical to infringe.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent allows IP teams and R&D professionals to map USD927161S against their own product designs, identify the specific ornamental claim scope, and locate prior art that may bear on validity. Eureka can also surface related Deckers design filings in the same application family or continuation chain, giving a complete picture of the enforcement perimeter around their footwear portfolio before your product reaches market.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USD0927161S to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar footwear design patent Schedule A cases in N.D. Illinois
The cases below involve footwear design patent assertions against anonymous e-commerce sellers in the Northern District of Illinois — the same court, mechanism, and technology domain as this Deckers action.
What this case signals for the footwear design patent IP landscape
Deckers’ Schedule A campaign illustrates how design patent enforcement against e-commerce sellers operates as a structured attrition strategy.
Schedule A filings are enforcement campaigns, not single disputes
Cases like this one are rarely about a single infringer. The Schedule A mechanism allows brand owners to aggregate dozens of marketplace sellers into one action, obtain a TRO and asset freeze early, and negotiate individual resolutions. The without-prejudice dismissal here is a feature of that playbook, not a sign of weakness in the underlying IP position.
Design patents remain Deckers’ primary enforcement tool
USD927161S — a design patent covering footwear aesthetics — is characteristic of how major footwear brands protect distinctive product silhouettes. Design patents are faster to assert, harder for defendants to design around quickly, and particularly effective against counterfeit-adjacent sellers. Competitors and marketplace platforms should monitor Deckers’ design patent portfolio for new filings.
Deckers v Partnerships — key questions answered
Deckers asserted USD927161S (Application No. 29/712480), a U.S. design patent protecting the ornamental design of a footwear article. No utility patents were asserted in this action.
Deckers filed a Rule 41(a)(1) notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice, confirming all Schedule A defendants had been disposed of. The public record does not disclose financial terms or settlement agreements. The without-prejudice exit is consistent with piecemeal resolutions typical of Schedule A enforcement campaigns, where individual defendants settle or become unreachable before a merits ruling.
A dismissal without prejudice means Deckers retains the right to re-file the same infringement claims against Quanzhou Beidelun International Trade Co., Ltd. or related entities in the future. It does not constitute an adjudication on the merits of USD927161S. A with-prejudice dismissal would have extinguished those re-filing rights permanently.
Quanzhou Beidelun International Trade Co., Ltd. was identified as the final remaining defendant in Deckers’ dismissal notice. Based in Quanzhou, China — a major footwear manufacturing hub — the entity was named alongside associated individuals and entities. No public finding of liability was made against them in this case.
Schedule A cases allow a plaintiff to sue multiple anonymous online sellers in a single action by listing them on an attached schedule rather than naming each individually in the complaint caption. Common in N.D. Illinois, these actions typically seek early ex parte TROs and asset freezes targeting marketplace accounts and payment processors, creating settlement leverage before defendants are even formally served. Design patent cases like this Deckers action are well-suited to the mechanism given the visual, easily-documented nature of design infringement.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.