jury finds design patent covering the Ugg Ultra Mini Boot invalid.

In a major legal decision with massive implications for the fashion industry and the budget-friendly "dupe" market, a federal jury has handed retail startup Quince a decisive victory over Deckers Brands, the parent company of Ugg, Hoka, and Teva.

Following a four-day trial in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, a jury ruled on Monday, June 15, that the design patent covering the incredibly popular Ugg Classic Ultra Mini Boot is invalid.

High Stakes for the "Dupe" Market

The trial has been widely watched as a critical legal test case for the legality of "dupes"—low-cost equivalents to luxury or popular brand-name goods. Quince has built its entire business model around this concept, stating that its mission is to "create products of equal or greater quality than the leading luxury brands at a much lower price."

Deckers Brands originally sued Quince in 2023, alleging that Quince’s Australian Shearling Mini Boot directly copied and infringed on U.S. Patent No. D927,161, which protects the specific look of the ankle-height Ugg boot.

While the jury did note that Quince's boot technically infringed on the patent design, they ultimately decided the patent itself should never have been granted in the first place. Because the patent was invalidated, Quince avoids all legal liability and financial damages.

Why the Patent Failed

The jury reached its verdict after just over two hours of deliberation. Speaking to Bloomberg after the decision, one juror pointed out two fatal flaws in Deckers' design patent:

Lack of Detail: The official design drawings lacked adequate reproduction detail.

Purely Functional: The features shown in the patent drawings consisted only of functional design components, such as structural seams, rather than unique ornamental features.

Under U.S. patent law, design patents are meant to protect purely ornamental, non-functional aesthetic designs. If a design is driven by how an object is put together or how it functions, it cannot be locked down by a single company.

“This case was never about an ankle boot. It was about whether one company can claim ownership of a common, category-wide design ‌and use the courts to push out anyone who competes with it.” said  Joel Dion, Head of Legal at Quince

A One-Two Punch for Deckers

This verdict caps off a total defeat for Deckers in its legal battle against Quince. Last year, U.S. District Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín dismissed Deckers' separate trademark infringement claims in the same dispute. In that ruling, the judge determined that the short, shearling boot design was simply too generic to qualify for trademark protection.

Xinlin Li Morrow of Morrow Ni LLP, serving as Quince's lead counsel, stated that the jury's verdict "vindicated Quince’s mission and consumer rights," signaling a green light for companies offering budget-conscious alternatives to dominant fashion staples.

Deckers Brands has not yet commented on whether it plans to appeal the verdict.