Deckers Outdoor v. Schedule A Defendants: UGG Design Patent Dispute Dismissed
Deckers Outdoor Corporation brought a design patent infringement action in the Northern District of Illinois over its UGG footwear design (USD927161S) against a broad group of online marketplace defendants. The case closed in 107 days via voluntary dismissal without prejudice, leaving Deckers free to refile against the named seller.
Deckers’ UGG design patent enforcement: a Schedule A takedown and early exit
Filed on 12 May 2025 in the Northern District of Illinois before Judge Jeffrey I. Cummings, this action saw Deckers Outdoor Corporation assert design patent USD927161S — covering the ornamental appearance of its iconic UGG footwear — against a broad group of anonymous online sellers collectively identified as Schedule A defendants. The Schedule A complaint format is a well-established enforcement vehicle in N.D. Illinois, commonly used against e-commerce counterfeiters and infringers operating across multiple marketplace storefronts.
The case closed on 27 August 2025, just 107 days after filing, when Deckers filed a voluntary dismissal without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1) as to a specific named defendant: Jinjiang Yonghe Town Ci’ao Department Store and associated individuals. The without-prejudice designation is legally significant — it means the dismissal does not adjudicate the merits and Deckers retains the ability to bring a new action against the same party on the same patent.
The rapid resolution and the voluntary, without-prejudice mechanism are consistent with several possible scenarios: an out-of-court settlement with confidential terms, a strategic decision to dismiss a non-responsive or dissolved entity, or a refiling strategy against other Schedule A defendants in a separate action. The public record does not disclose any settlement terms, damages, or injunctive relief granted, and no defendant counsel of record appeared, suggesting the named seller may never have formally engaged in the litigation.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 107 days
107 days — resolved faster than the median N.D. Illinois patent case
Voluntarily dismissed: what the without-prejudice ruling means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1): dismissal before a merits ruling
A Rule 41(a)(1) voluntary dismissal can be filed by the plaintiff as of right before the defendant serves an answer or motion for summary judgment. It terminates the action procedurally without any finding on infringement, validity, or damages. Here, no defendant counsel appeared, making this filing straightforward. The court takes no position on the underlying design patent claims.
No merits adjudicationWithout prejudice: Deckers preserves its right to refile
The dismissal is expressly stated to be without prejudice. This is legally distinct from a with-prejudice dismissal, which would bar Deckers from relitigating the same claims against the same defendant. Without prejudice means the claim survives — Deckers may refile against Jinjiang Yonghe Town Ci’ao Department Store or pursue related defendants in a new or amended action. The public record does not disclose any confidential settlement or license agreement.
Refile rights preservedNamed seller: no judgment, but no immunity
Because the dismissal is without prejudice, the named defendant — Jinjiang Yonghe Town Ci’ao Department Store — receives no legal protection from future enforcement of USD927161S. No finding of non-infringement was made. No defendant counsel appeared on record, which may signal a non-responsive or dissolved entity, or a pre-litigation resolution outside the docket. The absence of a cost order suggests no litigation fee exposure for either party.
No liability finding; no immunityDesign patent enforcement: the Schedule A playbook remains intact
Deckers’ use of the Schedule A format against alleged UGG counterfeiters is consistent with a broader brand-protection programme targeting e-commerce sellers in multiple jurisdictions. A voluntary, without-prejudice exit from one defendant does not weaken the patent or Deckers’ enforcement posture against remaining or future defendants. USD927161S remains in force, and similar sellers in the same marketplace ecosystem face ongoing exposure.
Patent enforcement continuesFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Deckers Outdoor Corp. | Company | Outdoor footwear brand — holder of UGG design patent USD927161SSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A | Individual | Anonymous online marketplace sellers; specifically Jinjiang Yonghe Town Ci’ao Department StoreSearch 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 Jeffrey I Cummings | Judge | Illinois Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal language tracks Rule 41(a)(1) precisely: Deckers identifies the specific defendant entity, confirms the without-prejudice designation, and requests case termination. The absence of any court-ordered conditions — no injunction, no cost award, no admission of infringement — confirms this is a clean procedural exit. For practitioners, the lack of defendant representation on the docket suggests early resolution or non-engagement, consistent with Deckers’ broader Schedule A enforcement model.
USD927161S — UGG ornamental footwear design
USD927161S (application no. US29/712480) is a United States design patent protecting the ornamental appearance of Deckers’ UGG footwear line. Design patents cover non-functional, aesthetic elements — in this case, the distinctive visual features of the UGG silhouette. The application number prefix ’29/’ confirms this is a design patent application, distinct from utility patents. Design patents grant protection for 15 years from grant, and infringement is assessed under the ‘ordinary observer’ test established in Egyptian Goddess v. Swisa.
UGG is one of the world’s most widely counterfeited footwear brands, making design patent enforcement central to Deckers’ IP strategy. USD927161S gives Deckers a powerful tool against lookalike products flooding e-commerce marketplaces, particularly those originating from Chinese sellers. The patent’s continued enforceability — confirmed by this case’s without-prejudice, no-invalidity-finding dismissal — means it remains a live litigation risk for any manufacturer or importer producing footwear with a visually similar profile.
Should you run an FTO against USD927161S before sourcing UGG-style footwear?
Any brand, private-label retailer, or e-commerce seller sourcing, importing, or distributing footwear with a silhouette resembling the UGG design family should treat USD927161S as a live enforcement risk. Deckers’ active use of Schedule A litigation in N.D. Illinois — including TRO applications and asset freezes — means that marketplace sellers can face immediate injunctive action. An FTO analysis should assess both the visual claim scope of USD927161S and related Deckers design registrations.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent allows IP and product teams to run a structured freedom-to-operate analysis against USD927161S and the broader Deckers design patent portfolio. You can map your specific product images against the patent’s visual claims, identify prior art that may limit scope, and benchmark against Deckers’ litigation history to assess real-world enforcement probability — before committing to production or import.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USD0927161S to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar UGG design patent enforcement cases in N.D. Illinois
Explore related Schedule A design patent infringement cases filed in the Northern District of Illinois involving UGG footwear and comparable ornamental design disputes.
What this case signals for the footwear design patent enforcement landscape
Deckers’ N.D. Illinois Schedule A strategy reflects a recurring enforcement model that IP teams and e-commerce sellers must monitor closely.
Schedule A complaints are an efficient, scalable enforcement tool
Filing against anonymous marketplace defendants en masse in N.D. Illinois allows brand owners like Deckers to obtain early TROs and asset freezes across dozens of storefronts simultaneously. Legal and product teams operating in footwear, apparel, or accessories should map their SKUs against Deckers’ active design patent portfolio to assess exposure before a TRO arrives.
Without-prejudice dismissal does not signal weakness in the underlying patent
Practitioners should not interpret Deckers’ voluntary dismissal as any concession on USD927161S’s validity or scope. The patent remains fully enforceable. The dismissal of a single defendant — particularly one with no counsel of record — is more likely a routine portfolio management decision than a retreat on the merits. Monitoring Deckers’ future filings against related sellers is advisable.
Deckers v Partnerships — key questions answered
Deckers Outdoor Corporation filed a design patent infringement action in the Northern District of Illinois on 12 May 2025, asserting USD927161S over its UGG footwear design. The case was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice on 27 August 2025 under Rule 41(a)(1) as to the named defendant Jinjiang Yonghe Town Ci’ao Department Store, 107 days after filing.
A without-prejudice dismissal means no merits ruling was made on infringement or validity. Deckers retains the right to refile the same claims against the same defendant in a future action. USD927161S remains enforceable, and the dismissal confers no immunity on the named defendant or other sellers offering visually similar footwear.
USD927161S (application no. US29/712480) is a US design patent held by Deckers Outdoor Corporation, protecting the ornamental visual appearance of UGG footwear. Design patents cover aesthetic, non-functional features and are assessed under the ‘ordinary observer’ test. They are typically granted for 15 years and are a primary enforcement tool against counterfeit footwear.
A Schedule A complaint is a format commonly used in the Northern District of Illinois allowing a plaintiff to sue a large group of anonymous or pseudonymous online sellers — identified by store name rather than legal entity — in a single action. This format enables early TRO applications and asset freezes across multiple e-commerce storefronts simultaneously, making it an efficient brand-enforcement vehicle.
No. A voluntary dismissal without prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1) does not affect patent validity, claim scope, or Deckers’ right to enforce USD927161S against other defendants. No invalidity finding was made, and no court ruling on the merits was issued. The patent remains in force and Deckers’ enforcement programme against UGG-style footwear sellers continues.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.