Skechers v. Top Glory: Heel Cup Patent Ends in Permanent Injunction
Skechers U.S.A. filed suit in the District of New Jersey against Top Glory Trading Group, DP Dream Pairs, and Miracle Miles Group, alleging infringement of US12011064B2 — a patent covering an adaptive heel cup shoe design. The case resolved in 248 days with a court-ordered permanent injunction barring Top Glory from making, selling, or importing the infringing shoe models in the United States.
Skechers Secures Injunction Against Rival Shoe Importers in NJ Federal Court
On September 24, 2024, Skechers U.S.A., Inc. and Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II (collectively, Skechers) filed a patent infringement action in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against Top Glory Trading Group Inc., DP Dream Pairs Inc., and Miracle Miles Group, Inc. The complaint alleged that the defendants’ Bruno Marc and Men’s Slip-On Canvas Walking Loafer shoe lines infringed US12011064B2, a patent protecting Skechers’ proprietary heel cup technology characterized by a load-distorting, variable-thickness design with a distinctive forward-facing lower concavity.
The case concluded on May 30, 2025, when the parties filed a Stipulation to Entry of Injunction and Dismissal reflecting a negotiated settlement. The court entered the agreed injunction barring Top Glory — and those acting in concert with it — from manufacturing, using, offering for sale, selling, or importing into the United States any shoe sharing the patented heel cup attributes until US12011064B2 expires. Ten specific shoe model numbers (including SBLS2408M and SBWA2403M) were expressly named. Dismissal with prejudice followed immediately, though the court expressly retained jurisdiction to enforce the injunction.
At 248 days from filing to dismissal, this case resolved considerably faster than the typical multi-year patent trial timeline, consistent with defendants choosing settlement over prolonged litigation risk. The mutual cost-bearing arrangement suggests a negotiated compromise rather than a capitulation, and the precise technical language of the injunction — mirroring complaint allegations paragraph by paragraph — indicates Skechers drove the drafting. What remains unknown from public filings is whether any royalty payments, licensing terms, or supply-chain restrictions accompanied the injunction privately.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 248 days
248 days — faster than average district court patent resolution (~2–3 years), suggesting early settlement pressure
Stipulated injunction and dismissal with prejudice: what the order means
Dismissed with prejudice following stipulated injunction
A dismissal with prejudice is a final, merits-barring termination — Skechers cannot refile the same infringement claims against Top Glory for the conduct covered here. Critically, the court coupled dismissal with an active permanent injunction and expressly retained jurisdiction, meaning any future breach by Top Glory can be addressed as contempt without initiating new litigation. This structure is stronger for the patent holder than a simple settlement dismissal.
Permanent injunction retainedSkechers obtains durable, court-enforceable exclusion
By securing a court-ordered injunction rather than a purely contractual settlement, Skechers gains a mechanism enforceable through contempt proceedings — a significantly more powerful deterrent than a private licensing agreement breach remedy. The injunction covers both named models and any functionally equivalent heel cup configuration, closing off design-around attempts that stay within the four attributes defined in the order. US12011064B2 survives fully enforceable.
Strong patent enforcement outcomeTop Glory exits with operational constraints but avoids trial risk
Top Glory, DP Dream Pairs, and Miracle Miles Group avoid a potentially adverse jury verdict and any damages award by settling before trial. However, they accepted a permanent, court-supervised ban on the named shoe models and any colorably similar heel cup designs in the US market. Each party bearing its own costs suggests defendants secured some negotiating concessions — possibly including no damages or royalty obligations — though private terms may differ.
Product line curtailed, no damages statedHeel cup patent now carries court-backed exclusivity signal
The injunction’s attribute-based scope — rather than model-number-only coverage — signals that Skechers intends US12011064B2 to function as a broad exclusionary tool across the affordable footwear import segment. Other importers and private-label brands selling Bruno Marc-style slip-on loafers with adaptive heel cup designs should treat this outcome as a credible enforcement precedent. The court’s retained jurisdiction makes monitoring and re-enforcement straightforward for Skechers.
Broad deterrent for footwear importersFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Skechers U.S.A., Inc. | Company | Global footwear brand — holder of US12011064B2 covering adaptive heel cup shoe technologySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Plaintiff | SKETCHERS U.S.A., INC. II | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | TOP GLORY TRADING GROUP INC. | Company | Shoe importer/retailer group: Top Glory Trading, DP Dream Pairs, and Miracle Miles GroupSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | DP DREAM PAIRS INC. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | MIRACLE MILES GROUP, INC. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Douglas Robert Weider | Attorney | Counsel for Skechers U.S.A., Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Greenberg Traurig LLP | Law Firm | Representing Skechers U.S.A., Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Cassandra Barbara Roth | Attorney | Counsel for TOP GLORY TRADING GROUP INC.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | MATTHEW JOSEPH CORRIEL | Attorney | Counsel for TOP GLORY TRADING GROUP INC.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Yenis V. Argueta Guevara | Attorney | Counsel for TOP GLORY TRADING GROUP INC.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Ropes & Gray, LLP | Law Firm | Representing TOP GLORY TRADING GROUP INC.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | New Jersey District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The stipulation’s language is notably precise: the injunction mirrors complaint paragraph references verbatim, covering both enumerated shoe models and any design sharing the four heel cup attributes. This dual structure — named SKUs plus functional attributes — reflects Skechers’ intent to foreclose incremental design-arounds. The court’s express retention of jurisdiction is atypical in simple settlement dismissals and elevates the order’s enforceability. Each party bearing its own costs is neutral on the merits but consistent with a defendant avoiding damages exposure rather than contesting liability.
US12011064B2 — Adaptive Heel Cup Shoe Technology
US12011064B2 protects a shoe heel cup design defined by four structural and functional attributes: a forward-facing lower concavity with amplitude greater than the rearward-facing upper concavity; distortion under the load of a user’s foot; and varying thickness throughout the cup structure. The patent’s claim scope, as articulated in the injunction, is deliberately functional rather than purely ornamental, meaning it applies to any heel cup exhibiting these behaviors regardless of specific material or visual styling choices.
For the affordable footwear import segment — where Bruno Marc and similar private-label brands compete directly with Skechers on price — this patent now carries demonstrated enforcement weight. The fact that Skechers pursued and obtained a permanent injunction rather than a licensing arrangement suggests it views this technology as a genuine competitive differentiator rather than a monetization asset. Any brand sourcing adaptive heel cup shoes from contract manufacturers should verify that their designs do not replicate these four functional attributes.
Should your footwear product team run an FTO against US12011064B2?
Any company developing, sourcing, or importing footwear incorporating an adaptive or flexible heel cup — particularly in the slip-on, loafer, walking, or casual shoe categories — should treat US12011064B2 as a live enforcement risk following this outcome. The injunction’s attribute-based scope means that functional similarity, not visual identity with Skechers products, is the operative test. R&D and product teams should specifically assess heel cup concavity geometry, load behavior, and thickness variation against the four injunction criteria before committing to new SKUs.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map your heel cup design specifications against US12011064B2’s claim landscape, flag design-around opportunities, and surface related Skechers portfolio filings that may present additional clearance concerns. Given the speed with which Skechers enforced this patent — under nine months from filing to injunction — early-stage clearance analysis is significantly less costly than reactive litigation defence.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US12011064B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Heel Cup & Footwear Patent Cases in US District Courts
Explore related footwear patent infringement actions in US district courts involving heel cup, sole, and shoe structural design patents against importers.
What this case signals for the footwear IP enforcement landscape
Skechers’ injunction-first settlement strategy in New Jersey offers a replicable template for footwear brand IP enforcement against importers.
Attribute-based injunctions are harder to design around than model-specific bans
The injunction covers any shoe sharing the four defined heel cup attributes — not merely the ten named models. This drafting approach forces competitors to conduct genuine technical differentiation, not cosmetic rebranding, before returning to the US market. R&D teams at footwear companies should audit heel cup geometry against these four criteria now.
Court-retained jurisdiction converts a settlement into ongoing enforcement leverage
By structuring the dismissal to preserve court jurisdiction, Skechers can pursue contempt — faster and cheaper than new litigation — if Top Glory or its affiliates reintroduce infringing designs. IP teams at competitor brands should note that this mechanism significantly raises the cost of post-settlement non-compliance.
Skechers v TOP — key questions answered
The court order prohibits Top Glory, DP Dream Pairs, and Miracle Miles Group from manufacturing, using, offering for sale, selling, or importing into the US ten named shoe models (including SBLS2408M and SBWA2403M) and any shoe sharing four defined heel cup attributes — forward-facing lower concavity greater than rearward upper concavity, load-distorting behavior, and varying thickness — until US12011064B2 expires.
Skechers asserted US Patent No. 12,011,064 B2 (application number US18/199262), covering an adaptive heel cup shoe design characterized by specific concavity geometry, load-distorting properties, and variable thickness. The patent underpins the structural heel cup technology in Skechers’ footwear line.
Dismissal with prejudice was part of the negotiated resolution: once the court entered the permanent injunction, the parties stipulated to dismissal, which prevents Skechers from re-filing the same claims. However, the court expressly retained jurisdiction to enforce the injunction, so Skechers retains a contempt remedy if Top Glory violates the order — making the dismissal a procedural closure rather than a loss of enforcement power.
The defendants were Top Glory Trading Group Inc., DP Dream Pairs Inc., and Miracle Miles Group, Inc., treated collectively as ‘Top Glory’ in the court’s order. They are associated with the Bruno Marc brand and Men’s Slip-On Canvas Walking Loafer products alleged to infringe US12011064B2.
The outcome signals that Skechers actively enforces US12011064B2 and is willing to pursue permanent injunctions — not merely damages — against importers. The injunction’s attribute-based drafting means other brands with functionally similar heel cup designs face real clearance risk, even if their products look different from the named models. Footwear companies sourcing adaptive heel cup shoes should commission FTO analysis before importing into the US.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.