Deckers Outdoor Corp. Wins Default Judgment in Footwear Design Patent Case Against 100+ Online Sellers
What would you like to do next?
Choose your path based on your current needs:
📋 Case Summary
| Case Name | Deckers Outdoor Corp. v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A |
| Case Number | 1:24-cv-03845 |
| Court | Illinois Northern District Court |
| Duration | May 10, 2024 – August 5, 2024 87 days |
| Outcome | Plaintiff Win — Default Judgment, Injunctions, Profit Disgorgement |
| Patents at Issue | |
| Accused Products | Footwear items sold through defendants’ online seller aliases and storefronts |
Case Overview
The Parties
⚖️ Plaintiff
A publicly traded global footwear company known for brands like UGG, HOKA, Teva, and Koolaburra, actively enforcing its robust IP portfolio.
🛡️ Defendant
Comprised of numerous individual sellers and entities, primarily operating through anonymous e-commerce storefronts on platforms such as Amazon, AliExpress, DHgate, eBay, Walmart, and Temu.
The Patent at Issue
This case centered on a U.S. design patent protecting the ornamental appearance of a footwear product. Design patents protect the visual, non-functional characteristics of a manufactured article. Infringement is assessed using the “ordinary observer” test from Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, Inc.
- • US D927,161S — Ornamental design for footwear
Launching new footwear designs?
Check if your product aesthetics might infringe existing design patents before market entry.
The Verdict & Legal Analysis
Outcome
The court granted Deckers’ Motion for Entry of Default and Default Judgment in its entirety on August 5, 2024, just 87 days after the complaint was filed. All defaulting defendants were found liable for patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271. The judgment included permanent injunctions, disgorgement of profits under 35 U.S.C. § 289, and coordinated asset freezes across major platforms.
Key Legal Issues
Liability was established through **default** due to defendants’ failure to appear. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55, default judgment is appropriate when a party fails to plead or defend. The application of 35 U.S.C. § 289 is legally significant, allowing recovery of an infringer’s **total profits** from the infringing article, a powerful remedy unique to design patents.
Freedom to Operate (FTO) Analysis for Footwear Designs
This case highlights critical IP risks in distinctive footwear design. Choose your next step:
📋 Understand This Case’s Impact
Learn about the specific risks and implications from this litigation in the footwear space.
- Analyze related design patent trends in footwear
- See key players in footwear design patent enforcement
- Understand the “ordinary observer” test application
🔍 Check My Product’s Risk
Run a comprehensive FTO analysis for your own footwear or consumer product designs.
- Input your product design or aesthetic features
- AI identifies potentially blocking design patents
- Get actionable risk assessment report
High Risk Area
Distinctive footwear aesthetic elements
1 Patent at Issue
Focus on ornamental design
Proactive FTO
Reduces litigation exposure
✅ Key Takeaways
Schedule A design patent litigation in the N.D. Illinois remains highly effective for multi-defendant e-commerce enforcement.
Explore Schedule A tactics →The § 289 total-profits remedy provides substantial leverage without apportionment burden in default judgment contexts.
Search similar cases →Design patent portfolios should be prioritized alongside trademark registrations for consumer product brands, especially in visually driven categories like footwear.
Benchmark IP portfolios →Asset freeze mechanisms via payment processors (PayPal, Alipay, Amazon Pay) are court-enforceable and time-sensitive tools in e-commerce enforcement.
Understand enforcement tools →Frequently Asked Questions
U.S. Design Patent No. USD927,161S (Application No. 29/712,480), covering the ornamental design of a footwear product.
All defendants failed to appear or respond to the complaint. Under FRCP 55, the court accepted Deckers’ allegations as true and granted full relief, including permanent injunctions and profit disgorgement under 35 U.S.C. § 289.
It reinforces the viability of Schedule A multi-defendant actions and platform-coordinated enforcement as a scalable strategy for brand owners protecting distinctive product designs against online infringement.
Ready to Strengthen Your Patent Strategy?
Join 18,000+ IP professionals using PatSnap Eureka to conduct prior art searches, draft patents, and analyse competitive landscapes with AI-powered precision.
References
- PACER Case Lookup – N.D. Illinois – Case No. 1:24-cv-03845
- U.S. Patent and Trademark Office — Design Patent Resources
- Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, Inc., 543 F.3d 665 (Fed. Cir. 2008)
- Cornell Legal Information Institute — 35 U.S.C. § 289
- Cornell Legal Information Institute — Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. All case information is drawn from publicly available court records. For platform capabilities, visit PatSnap.