Skechers v. L.L. Bean: Heel Cup Design Patent Ends in Injunction
Skechers sued L.L. Bean in the Southern District of New York, asserting two design patents covering its signature Heel Cup shoe style against Bean’s Freeport shoe. The case resolved in 164 days with a court-ordered injunction permanently barring L.L. Bean from making, selling, or importing the accused footwear in the United States.
Design patent injunction ends Skechers–L.L. Bean footwear dispute
On July 15, 2024, Skechers U.S.A., Inc. and Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II filed suit against L.L. Bean, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, asserting infringement of two design patents — USD0994312S and USD0992888S — which protect the ornamental appearance of Skechers’ Heel Cup shoe style. The accused product was L.L. Bean’s Freeport shoe, which Skechers alleged fell within the scope of both Heel Cup patents.
The case closed on December 26, 2024, when Judge Margaret M. Garnett entered a court-ordered stipulated injunction and dismissed the action with prejudice. Under the injunction, L.L. Bean and anyone acting in concert with it is permanently barred from manufacturing, using, offering for sale, selling, or importing the Freeport shoe or any shoe within the scope of the Heel Cup patents until the last of the two patents expires. Each party agreed to bear its own costs, attorneys’ fees, and expenses.
At 164 days from filing to closure, the resolution is notably swift, suggesting L.L. Bean may have concluded that design-around costs or litigation risk outweighed continued sales of the Freeport style. The court expressly retained jurisdiction to enforce the injunction, a provision that gives Skechers a fast-track enforcement mechanism if violations occur. The financial terms of the underlying settlement agreement — including any royalty or damages payment — remain confidential and are not disclosed in the public record.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 164 days
164 days — resolved faster than the median S.D.N.Y. patent case, suggesting early settlement pressure
Injunction entered: what the stipulated dismissal means for both sides
Stipulated injunction with prejudice dismissal explained
A stipulated injunction is a court order consented to by both parties as part of a settlement. Unlike a mere voluntary dismissal, it carries the full enforcement weight of a judicial decree. Dismissed ‘with prejudice’ means Skechers cannot re-file the same claims. Crucially, the court retained jurisdiction, allowing Skechers to return to court quickly for contempt proceedings if L.L. Bean violates the injunction.
Dismissed with prejudiceSkechers secures enforceable ban on Freeport shoe
Skechers achieved a court-entered injunction covering not only the specific Freeport shoe but any shoe ‘falling within the scope of the Heel Cup Patents’ until the last of USD0994312S and USD0992888S expires. This broad scope goes beyond the accused product and functions as a standing enforcement tool against colorable imitations, strengthening Skechers’ design patent portfolio in practice.
Broad injunctive reliefL.L. Bean exits Freeport shoe and bears its own legal costs
L.L. Bean accepted a permanent injunction barring the Freeport shoe and any substantially similar heel cup design from its U.S. product line for the life of both patents. With each party bearing its own fees, L.L. Bean avoided a potential fee award but must absorb its own significant litigation and product transition costs. Any confidential monetary terms are not disclosed in the public record.
Product line change requiredHeel Cup patents now carry demonstrated enforcement credibility
The injunction signals that Skechers is prepared to litigate its Heel Cup design patents to a coercive outcome in under six months. Competitors selling footwear with visually similar heel cup features should treat this result as a credible enforcement signal. The patent scope language — ‘any shoe falling within the scope of the Heel Cup Patents’ — suggests Skechers will apply the same broad reading to future accused products.
Active enforcement signalFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Skechers U.S.A., Inc. | Company | Global footwear brand — holder of design patents USD0994312S and USD0992888SSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Plaintiff | Skechers USA, Inc. II | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | L.L. Bean, Inc. | Company | L.L. Bean, Inc. — U.S. outdoor apparel and footwear retailer, maker of accused Freeport shoeSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Does | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Andrew James Ligotti | Attorney | Counsel for Skechers U.S.A., Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Robert L. Lee | Attorney | Counsel for Skechers U.S.A., Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Alston & Bird LLP | Law Firm | Representing Skechers U.S.A., Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Alston & Bird LLP (NYC) | Law Firm | Representing Skechers U.S.A., Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Manish Mehta | Attorney | Counsel for L.L. Bean, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Mircea Tipescu | Attorney | Counsel for L.L. Bean, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Timothy Patrick Heaton | Attorney | Counsel for L.L. Bean, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Benesch, Friedlanders, Coplan & Aronoff LLP | Law Firm | Representing L.L. Bean, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Margaret M. Garnett | Judge | New York Southern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The verdict text reflects a consent order rather than a litigated judgment — both parties signed a Stipulation to Entry of Injunction and Dismissal, which the court adopted wholesale. The breadth of the injunctive language is commercially significant: the order bars not only the named Freeport shoe but any footwear ‘falling within the scope of the Heel Cup Patents,’ effectively encoding Skechers’ claim construction into a binding court decree. The court’s express retention of jurisdiction converts the settlement into an ongoing enforcement mechanism, a provision more typically associated with contested injunctions than negotiated resolutions.
USD0994312S & USD0992888S — Skechers Heel Cup ornamental footwear design
USD0994312S (App. No. 29/857,639) and USD0992888S (App. No. 29/840,697) are U.S. design patents protecting the ornamental appearance of Skechers’ Heel Cup shoe style. Design patents protect the non-functional, visual characteristics of a product — in this case, the specific aesthetic of the heel cup element as embodied in Skechers’ footwear. Both patents remain in force, with protection running 15 years from grant under post-AIA rules.
Skechers’ decision to assert two design patents covering the same heel cup aesthetic creates overlapping protection that raises the bar for competitors attempting to design around a single claim. The outcome of this case — a broad injunction covering ‘any shoe falling within the scope’ of both patents — suggests Skechers has successfully positioned these patents as portfolio anchors for its Heel Cup franchise. Any footwear company developing a shoe with a visually similar heel cup structure should treat both patents as live enforcement risks.
Should you run an FTO against USD0994312S and USD0992888S?
Any footwear brand, contract manufacturer, or retailer developing or sourcing shoes with a heel cup design element should consider these patents live enforcement risks. The Skechers v. L.L. Bean outcome demonstrates that Skechers will pursue injunctive relief swiftly — within six months of filing — and that courts will enter broad orders covering not just named products but any shoe within the patents’ scope. Product and sourcing teams should flag heel cup features for FTO review before commercialisation.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claim boundaries of USD0994312S and USD0992888S against your product designs, identify prior art that may limit their scope, and surface related Skechers design patent filings that could affect adjacent shoe styles. Running an FTO before product launch is materially cheaper than responding to an injunction motion in S.D.N.Y.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USD0994312S to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar footwear design patent cases in U.S. district courts
Explore comparable design patent infringement actions in footwear litigated in U.S. district courts, including similar stipulated injunction outcomes.
What this case signals for the footwear design patent landscape
Skechers’ rapid injunction against L.L. Bean illustrates how design patents can deliver fast, broad relief in footwear disputes.
Design patents can deliver injunctions faster than utility patents
This case closed in 164 days with a court-ordered injunction — a timeline that would be nearly impossible in a utility patent dispute. For footwear brands, design patents covering ornamental shoe features offer a faster path to coercive relief, particularly when the visual similarity between products is readily apparent.
Injunction scope extends beyond the accused product
The injunction covers ‘any shoe falling within the scope of the Heel Cup Patents,’ not just the Freeport model. This construction means L.L. Bean — and by signal, the market — must assess all heel cup designs against both patents before launch, not merely avoid a specific SKU.
Skechers v L.L. — key questions answered
The court entered a stipulated injunction permanently barring L.L. Bean from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, or importing the Freeport shoe or any shoe within the scope of U.S. Design Patents USD0994312S and USD0992888S. The case was simultaneously dismissed with prejudice, with each party bearing its own costs. The court retained jurisdiction to enforce the injunction.
Skechers asserted two design patents: USD0994312S (App. No. 29/857,639) and USD0992888S (App. No. 29/840,697), both covering the ornamental design of the Skechers Heel Cup shoe style. The accused product was L.L. Bean’s Freeport shoe.
Dismissal with prejudice means Skechers cannot refile the same patent infringement claims against L.L. Bean regarding the Freeport shoe. However, because the court entered a concurrent injunction and retained jurisdiction, Skechers retains an enforcement mechanism: it can return to court for contempt proceedings if L.L. Bean violates the injunction, without needing to file a new lawsuit.
The case was filed on July 15, 2024 and closed on December 26, 2024 — a span of 164 days. This is notably fast for patent litigation in the Southern District of New York, consistent with early settlement negotiations driven by the strength of Skechers’ injunction claim and L.L. Bean’s exposure on the Freeport product.
Yes. The court’s order enjoins L.L. Bean from making or selling not only the specifically named Freeport shoe but also ‘any shoe falling within the scope of the Heel Cup Patents’ — referring to USD0994312S and USD0992888S — until the last of those patents expires. This broad scope extends the injunction to future products with a substantially similar heel cup design.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.