Deckers Outdoor Corp. v. Schedule A Defendants: Footwear Design Patent Dismissal
Deckers Outdoor Corporation, maker of UGG and HOKA footwear, filed suit in the Northern District of Illinois against anonymous online sellers for alleged infringement of design patent USD901,870S. The case was voluntarily dismissed after 166 days, with a 270-day window to reinstate — a structurally notable exit strategy common in Schedule A enforcement campaigns.
Design Patent Blitz: Deckers Targets Anonymous Footwear Sellers
On January 11, 2024, Deckers Outdoor Corporation filed Case No. 1:24-cv-00283 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois before Judge Nancy L. Maldonado. The complaint alleged infringement of design patent USD901,870S (Application No. US29/699054), covering a distinctive footwear design. The defendants — identified only as anonymous partnerships, unincorporated associations, and individuals operating under the online storefront ‘Hu06’ — are typical of the Schedule A litigation model used to pursue e-commerce counterfeiters and design copycats at scale.
The case closed on June 25, 2024, after 166 days, via a voluntary dismissal filed by Deckers under Rule 41(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Critically, the dismissal included leave to reinstate within 270 days — a provision that is legally meaningful. This is not a standard dismissal with or without prejudice; rather, it preserves Deckers’ enforcement rights against the named defendants for a defined period, suggesting a negotiated resolution or ongoing settlement discussions rather than an outright abandonment of the claim.
The 166-day lifecycle is relatively short for Schedule A cases in the Northern District of Illinois, which sometimes extend well over a year when defendants contest jurisdiction or asset restraining orders. The reinstatement clause is a distinctive feature: it gives Deckers leverage to re-engage if any agreed conditions are breached, or if negotiations stall. The public record does not disclose whether a settlement was reached, what conditions were attached to reinstatement, or whether any asset freeze or injunctive relief was obtained prior to dismissal.
Filing to Case Dismissed in 166 days
166 days — below average for N.D. Ill. Schedule A IP actions, suggesting early resolution
Rule 41(a)(1) dismissal with reinstatement: what the exit means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1) dismissal with reinstatement right
A voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1) is filed by the plaintiff without court approval, before an answer or summary judgment motion has been served. The reinstatement clause — permitting Deckers to revive the action within 270 days — is an unusual term that suggests the parties reached some form of conditional agreement. It is not equivalent to a dismissal with or without prejudice in the traditional sense; it is a structured off-ramp that preserves plaintiff leverage.
Structured voluntary exitDeckers retains enforcement leverage for 270 days
The reinstatement window means Deckers does not fully relinquish its claims. If the defendants breach any agreed conditions — or if settlement funds are not received — Deckers can revive the suit without refiling. This is a common but tactically significant feature of Schedule A enforcement: it converts the dismissal into a conditional cease-fire rather than a clean exit. Deckers’ IP enforcement posture remains intact.
Plaintiff leverage preservedAnonymous sellers face a 270-day reinstatement sword
The defendant storefronts and individuals identified on Schedule A and associated with ‘Hu06’ are not free and clear. For the 270-day reinstatement period, they remain exposed to the re-emergence of this action. The public record does not confirm whether any injunction, asset freeze, or monetary settlement was imposed. Defendants who did not retain counsel — common in Schedule A actions — face particular uncertainty about their ongoing obligations.
Conditional exposure remainsSchedule A tactics signal sustained design IP enforcement by Deckers
Deckers’ use of the Schedule A model — naming anonymous e-commerce sellers in a single action — is consistent with an aggressive brand protection strategy targeting counterfeit and infringing footwear online. USD901,870S remains an active design patent. Third-party sellers on platforms such as Amazon, Alibaba, or Wish who offer visually similar footwear should treat this case as a signal that Deckers actively monitors and litigates design infringement at scale.
Active design IP enforcementFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Deckers Outdoor Corp. | Company | Global footwear brand (UGG, HOKA, Teva) — holder of design patent USD901,870SSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A | Individual | Anonymous online sellers and individuals operating storefront ‘Hu06’ on e-commerce platformsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Hu06 And The Individuals And Entities Operating Hu06 | Individual | 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 | Marcella Deshonda Slay | 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 Nancy L. Maldonado | Judge | Illinois Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal language — ‘with leave to reinstate within two hundred and seventy (270) days’ — is a structured exit that sits outside the standard with/without prejudice binary. It suggests the parties reached a conditional agreement whose terms are not reflected in the public docket. For the 270-day window, Deckers retains the practical ability to revive all claims, preserving both deterrence and enforcement optionality. Defendants who have not confirmed compliance with any agreed conditions remain at legal risk.
USD901,870S — ornamental footwear design patent
USD901,870S is a U.S. design patent (filed under Application No. US29/699054) protecting the ornamental appearance of a footwear product — likely a boot or shoe silhouette associated with Deckers’ brand portfolio, which includes UGG, HOKA, Teva, and Sanuk. Design patents protect non-functional visual characteristics: shape, configuration, and surface ornamentation as shown in the patent drawings. The scope of protection is determined by comparing the claimed design to accused products through the lens of an ordinary observer familiar with the prior art.
For a company of Deckers’ scale, design patents such as USD901,870S serve as frontline tools against counterfeit and copycat products proliferating on e-commerce marketplaces. The footwear sector is among the highest-volume targets for design infringement enforcement globally. This patent’s assertion against anonymous Schedule A defendants is consistent with a broader portfolio-level strategy: design IP is filed, maintained, and actively enforced to create cost and risk barriers for sellers of infringing goods. Competitors and platform sellers in adjacent product categories should monitor this patent’s claim scope carefully.
Should you run an FTO analysis against USD901,870S?
Any company designing, manufacturing, importing, or selling footwear — particularly boots, shoes, or slippers with aesthetic similarities to Deckers’ UGG or HOKA lines — should assess freedom-to-operate against USD901,870S. This case confirms that Deckers is actively enforcing this design patent against e-commerce sellers, including anonymous storefronts. If your product has a comparable silhouette, sole shape, or surface design, the risk of a Schedule A action or targeted infringement claim is material. This applies equally to brands selling on Amazon, eBay, Shopify, or Alibaba-linked platforms.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent enables R&D and product teams to run structured freedom-to-operate analyses against active U.S. design patents including USD901,870S. Eureka maps design patent claim drawings to product images, identifies prior art that may narrow claim scope, and surfaces related Deckers design patents that could extend the enforcement perimeter. For footwear brands, platform sellers, and private-label manufacturers, an Eureka FTO report provides an evidence-based basis for design-around decisions and commercial risk assessment before market entry.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USD0901870S to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar footwear design patent Schedule A cases in N.D. Illinois
Explore comparable Schedule A design patent infringement actions in the Northern District of Illinois involving footwear brands and anonymous e-commerce defendants.
What this case signals for the footwear design IP enforcement landscape
Deckers’ Schedule A campaign and reinstatement clause reveal a mature, repeatable IP enforcement playbook targeting online counterfeit markets.
Schedule A filings are enforcement tools, not just lawsuits
The Northern District of Illinois is a preferred venue for Schedule A actions because courts there have historically granted ex parte temporary restraining orders and asset freezes quickly. Deckers filing here — and achieving a 166-day resolution — is consistent with a well-practised enforcement workflow rather than a one-off dispute.
The 270-day reinstatement clause is a negotiating instrument
When plaintiffs dismiss with reinstatement rights, it typically signals a conditional resolution: the defendant has agreed to something — removal of listings, payment, or cessation of activity — and the reinstatement window enforces compliance. IP teams tracking Deckers’ enforcement activity should note this as a likely settlement, not an abandonment.
Deckers v Partnerships — key questions answered
The case was voluntarily dismissed by Deckers Outdoor Corporation under Rule 41(a)(1) on June 25, 2024, after 166 days. The dismissal included leave to reinstate the action within 270 days as to the named defendants, suggesting a conditional resolution rather than a clean abandonment of the claims.
Deckers asserted design patent USD901,870S (Application No. US29/699054), which covers the ornamental appearance of a footwear product. Design patents protect non-functional visual characteristics and are infringed when an ordinary observer would find the accused product substantially similar to the patented design.
A ‘leave to reinstate’ clause means the plaintiff may revive the dismissed action within the specified period — here, 270 days — without filing a new complaint. It typically signals a conditional resolution: the plaintiff agrees to dismiss in exchange for certain defendant commitments, retaining the right to re-engage if those commitments are not honoured. The public record does not disclose the specific conditions attached.
The defendants are anonymous partnerships, unincorporated associations, and individuals listed on Schedule A — a standard structure in e-commerce enforcement actions. Additionally named was Hu06 and the individuals and entities operating Hu06, suggesting an online storefront suspected of selling footwear that allegedly infringes Deckers’ design patent USD901,870S.
Yes. A voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1) does not invalidate or limit the underlying patent. USD901,870S remains a valid, enforceable U.S. design patent. Deckers can and does assert it in other proceedings. Third-party sellers of footwear with similar ornamental designs should not treat this dismissal as a signal that the patent is inactive or unenforceable.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.