Ugg Design Patent Thrown Out at Trial: Why a Design Patent Alone May Not Protect Your Product

A California jury delivered a surprising split verdict in June 2026 in the case of Deckers Outdoor Corporation v. Last Brand Inc. (d/b/a Quince). The jury found that Quince's Australian Shearling Mini Boot infringed Deckers' design patent for the iconic Ugg Classic Ultra Mini, but simultaneously ruled that the design patent itself was invalid. In September 2026, a federal judge denied Deckers' request for a new trial, making the loss final. Despite proving that its boot design had been copied, Deckers walked away with nothing.

The Case: Deckers v. Quince

Deckers, the parent company of the Ugg brand, held U.S. Design Patent D927,161 covering the ornamental design of the Ugg Classic Ultra Mini's footwear upper. Quince, an online direct-to-consumer retailer, sold a similar boot at a significantly lower price point. After a four-day trial, the jury found the two designs were substantially similar to an ordinary observer, satisfying the test for design patent infringement.

However, Quince also challenged the validity of the patent, and the jury sided with Quince on that issue as well. Because an invalid patent cannot be enforced, the infringement finding was rendered meaningless. The court had also previously declared the Ugg Classic Ultra Mini trade dress generic, further limiting Deckers' ability to protect the boot's appearance.

Why the Patent Failed

Design patents protect the ornamental appearance of a product, not how it functions. To remain valid, a design must be novel and non-obvious compared to what existed before it was created. If the marketplace is already filled with similar-looking products, a design patent becomes vulnerable to challenge and invalidation.

The Ugg case illustrates this risk clearly. The rise of "dupe culture" on social media, where cheaper imitations of popular products are promoted as legitimate alternatives, has flooded the market with similar boot designs. When a product's look becomes so widely replicated that consumers no longer associate it exclusively with one source, the legal protections for that appearance weaken significantly. The jury's decision reflected a market reality: too many similar boots existed for the Ugg design to maintain its exclusive patent protection.

Key Takeaway for Business Owners

For businesses that depend on a product's distinctive appearance as a competitive advantage, this case delivers a critical lesson: relying on a single form of IP protection is risky. A comprehensive strategy should layer utility patents (protecting how a product works), design patents (protecting how it looks), trademarks (protecting brand names and logos), and trade dress claims (protecting the overall commercial impression of a product). Filing for protection early, before competitors begin producing similar designs, is essential to building a strong portfolio.

Equally important is monitoring the marketplace for imitators and enforcing your rights promptly. The longer knockoff products circulate without challenge, the stronger the argument becomes that a design is generic or commonplace. Proactive enforcement helps preserve the distinctiveness that makes your IP protectable in the first place.

If you have questions about protecting your product designs or building a layered IP strategy, schedule a free consultation with Diorio IP Law Group to discuss your options.