Deckers Outdoor Corp. v. Schedule A Defendants — Footwear Design Patent Action Voluntarily Dismissed
Deckers Outdoor Corporation, owner of the UGG and HOKA brands, filed a design patent infringement suit in the Northern District of Illinois against anonymous online sellers asserting USD927161S, a registered footwear design. The case was voluntarily dismissed within 180 days — with a 270-day reinstatement window preserved against the last remaining defendant, LAISLAS.
Schedule A footwear design dispute exits quietly with reinstatement clause intact
On 26 July 2023, Deckers Outdoor Corporation — the Santa Barbara-based group behind UGG, HOKA, and Teva — filed Case No. 1:23-cv-04877 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois before Judge Lindsay C. Jenkins. The action named a class of anonymous defendants, described as ‘Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A,’ a standard pleading structure used in mass online-marketplace enforcement actions. The asserted patent, USD927161S (application number US29/712480), protects an ornamental footwear design.
The case closed on 22 January 2024 — 180 days after filing — when Deckers filed a voluntary dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1) as to the last remaining defendant, LAISLAS. Critically, the dismissal was granted ‘with leave to reinstate within two hundred and seventy (270) days,’ a mechanism that preserved Deckers’ ability to resume litigation against LAISLAS without refiling. Judge Jenkins entered a minute order terminating the civil case. No defendant law firm or agents appear on the public docket, suggesting LAISLAS did not enter a formal appearance.
The 180-day resolution is consistent with the typical arc of Schedule A enforcement campaigns, where plaintiffs commonly secure early injunctive relief or settlements with the majority of defendants, then administratively close remaining claims once commercial objectives are met. The 270-day reinstatement window is a notable structural detail: it suggests Deckers may have reached a conditional arrangement with LAISLAS — or simply chose to preserve optionality — rather than concluding the matter definitively. The precise terms of any resolution with LAISLAS are not disclosed in the public record.
Filing to resolution in 180 days
Resolved in 180 days — well within median lifecycle for N.D. Ill. Schedule A design patent cases
Voluntarily dismissed with 270-day reinstatement window against LAISLAS
Rule 41(a)(1) dismissal — what it means and what it doesn’t
A Rule 41(a)(1) voluntary dismissal allows a plaintiff to exit a case without a court order before the defendant files an answer or motion for summary judgment. Here, Deckers invoked it against LAISLAS, the sole remaining defendant. Because no defendant counsel appears on the docket, LAISLAS likely never formally appeared — making Rule 41(a)(1) available. The dismissal terminated the civil case but did not necessarily extinguish the underlying dispute.
Plaintiff-initiated exitWith or without prejudice? The public record is silent
The dismissal was entered ‘with leave to reinstate within 270 days,’ which is a conditional mechanism distinct from a standard with-prejudice or without-prejudice dismissal. The public docket does not expressly state whether the dismissal carries prejudice after the 270-day window expires. Practitioners should treat this as legally ambiguous: reinstatement rights were preserved during the window, but what survives beyond it is not determinable from the public record alone.
Prejudice status unclearSchedule A litigation: mass enforcement against anonymous sellers
Deckers’ use of the ‘Schedule A’ defendant structure is a widely used strategy in the Northern District of Illinois to pursue dozens of anonymous e-commerce infringers in a single action. Plaintiffs typically obtain a temporary restraining order freezing marketplace accounts early in proceedings, then settle with most defendants individually. The case reaching voluntary dismissal against a single named defendant — LAISLAS — is consistent with that pattern: all other defendants were likely resolved prior to closure.
N.D. Ill. mass enforcement model270-day reinstatement clause signals conditional or incomplete resolution
The 270-day leave to reinstate is not standard in unconditional voluntary dismissals. Its inclusion typically signals one of two scenarios: a conditional settlement requiring LAISLAS to fulfil obligations during the window, or a tactical pause by Deckers to preserve litigation leverage. Either way, the clause kept Deckers’ options open through approximately October 2024 without requiring a new filing. The outcome beyond that window is not disclosed in the public record.
Optionality preserved post-dismissalFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Deckers Outdoor Corp. | Company | Footwear and apparel group (UGG, HOKA, Teva) — holder of USD927161SSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A | Company | Anonymous online marketplace sellers; last remaining defendant identified as LAISLASSearch 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 | 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 ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Lindsay C. Jenkins | Chief Judge | Illinois Northern District Court — Chief JudgeSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Stipulation of dismissal — official text
The dismissal language — ‘with leave to reinstate within two hundred and seventy (270) days’ — is a structured exit rather than a clean termination. It preserved Deckers’ litigation position against LAISLAS without requiring a new complaint, filing fee, or re-service. The absence of any defendant counsel on the docket throughout proceedings suggests LAISLAS never formally appeared, which may have simplified Deckers’ ability to exit on its own terms. The public record does not disclose whether any settlement, consent order, or undertaking underpins this conditional dismissal.
USD927161S — Ornamental Footwear Design (App. No. US29/712480)
USD927161S is a U.S. design patent protecting the ornamental appearance of a footwear article, filed under application number US29/712480. U.S. design patents — prefixed ‘USD’ — protect non-functional aesthetic elements of a product and are governed by 35 U.S.C. § 171. Unlike utility patents, design patents are assessed under the ‘ordinary observer’ test: infringement is established if an ordinary consumer would likely confuse the accused product’s appearance with the patented design. Design patents typically have a 15-year term from grant and are often faster and cheaper to obtain than utility patents, making them a preferred tool for consumer product brands.
In the footwear sector, design patents covering silhouette, sole profile, and upper construction are commercially significant because they directly protect the visual identity of signature styles — the features most commonly copied by counterfeiters and fast-fashion competitors on online marketplaces. Deckers’ assertion of USD927161S in a Schedule A action signals that this design is considered commercially active and worth defending at scale. Competitors developing footwear with similar ornamental profiles — particularly boot or slipper-adjacent silhouettes associated with UGG-style products — face meaningful infringement risk if their designs fall within the scope of the ordinary observer test.
Should your product team run an FTO against USD927161S?
Any brand, manufacturer, or online seller developing or sourcing footwear with a silhouette or ornamental profile that could be associated with Deckers’ UGG or HOKA product lines should treat USD927161S as a live FTO consideration. This is particularly relevant for businesses selling through Amazon, Alibaba, Wish, or other marketplace platforms — precisely the channels targeted in Schedule A actions. Even sellers who have not been named in prior Deckers actions are at risk if their product aesthetics overlap with the patented design’s visual scope.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent allows product and IP teams to run rapid freedom-to-operate analyses against USD927161S and related Deckers design registrations, mapping claim scope visually and flagging design-arounds. Eureka’s claim monitoring tools can also alert your team if Deckers files continuation or related design applications that extend coverage to adjacent footwear styles — giving you early warning before enforcement actions are filed.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USD0927161S to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Schedule A Footwear Design Patent Cases in N.D. Illinois
PatSnap Eureka tracks related litigation across truck body equipment, vehicle accessories, and comparable infringement actions in the Georgia district system.
What this case signals for the footwear design IP enforcement landscape
Deckers’ Schedule A campaign illustrates how major footwear brands are systematically using design patents to police online marketplaces.
Design patents are the weapon of choice for online marketplace enforcement
USD-series design patents are particularly effective in Schedule A actions because infringement analysis is visual and often straightforward to establish at the TRO stage. Deckers’ deployment of USD927161S against anonymous sellers demonstrates how a single registered design can anchor a broad, multi-defendant enforcement campaign. Brands without registered design patents in active product lines face a meaningful enforcement gap.
N.D. Illinois remains the dominant venue for Schedule A footwear actions
The Northern District of Illinois has become the preferred venue for Schedule A e-commerce enforcement due to established local practice, receptive judges, and speed of TRO proceedings. Footwear and apparel brands operating in this space — or defendants selling into U.S. markets through online platforms — should anticipate this venue as a primary litigation risk. Monitoring new filings in N.D. Ill. is increasingly standard practice for marketplace IP teams.
Deckers v The — key questions answered
Deckers Outdoor Corporation filed a design patent infringement action in the Northern District of Illinois on 26 July 2023 asserting USD927161S against anonymous online sellers. The case was voluntarily dismissed on 22 January 2024 — 180 days after filing — as to the last remaining defendant, LAISLAS, with leave to reinstate within 270 days.
USD927161S (application number US29/712480) is a U.S. design patent protecting the ornamental appearance of a footwear article. Design patents cover non-functional aesthetic elements and are assessed under the ‘ordinary observer’ infringement test. Deckers used this patent as the basis of its Schedule A enforcement campaign against anonymous marketplace sellers.
A ‘270-day reinstatement’ clause preserves the plaintiff’s right to reactivate the case against the dismissed defendant without filing a new complaint, paying new filing fees, or re-serving the defendant. It is often used when a conditional settlement or compliance period is in place. The public record does not disclose what specific conditions, if any, underpin the reinstatement window in this case.
Schedule A cases are a mass enforcement mechanism used predominantly in the N.D. Ill. in which a plaintiff sues dozens or hundreds of anonymous e-commerce sellers — identified only on a sealed Schedule A — in a single action. Plaintiffs typically seek a TRO to freeze marketplace accounts early in proceedings, then settle individually with defendants. The N.D. Ill. has become the leading venue for this type of IP enforcement due to established local procedure and judicial familiarity.
The dismissal included leave to reinstate within 270 days from the dismissal date of 22 January 2024, meaning reinstatement was available through approximately October 2024. Whether Deckers could refile a new action after that window — and whether the dismissal carries any prejudicial effect — is not determinable from the public record. The prejudice status of the dismissal beyond the reinstatement window is legally ambiguous based on available docket information.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.