Imagine That IP Law Blog

Aggressive IP enforcement can be a powerful tool for protecting product designs, brand equity, and market position. But the related proceedings between Deckers Outdoor Corporation and Last Brand, Inc., d/b/a Quince, show the other side of that strategy: when enforcement becomes sufficiently broad, repetitive, or unsuccessful, the enforcement campaign itself may become the subject of litigation.

Following the jury verdict in Deckers Outdoor Corp. v. Last Brand Inc., Quince did not simply declare victory and move on. As discussed in our companion post on the Deckers jury trial, Quince had already filed a separate antitrust complaint accusing Deckers of operating what Quince called a “litigation assembly line” of trade dress lawsuits. Quince then moved for approximately $1.8 million in attorneys’ fees and non-taxable costs, arguing that the underlying IP case was “exceptional” under the Patent Act and Lanham Act.

Together, the antitrust complaint and fee motion offer a useful reminder: product-design enforcement does not happen in a vacuum. Enforcement theories, pleadings, settlement practices, litigation conduct, and post-loss strategy can all become evidence in the next dispute.

The Antitrust Complaint: From IP Defense to Antitrust Counteroffensive
In February 2026, Quince filed a Sherman Act § 2 attempted-monopolization complaint against Deckers in the Northern District of California. The complaint alleges that Deckers used “hundreds of sham trade dress lawsuits” asserting unprotectable, unregistered product-design trade dress to block competitors in the market for sheepskin- and shearling-lined casual footwear.

Quince’s theory is built around repetition and scale. According to the complaint, Deckers allegedly used template complaints asserting rights over common footwear features such as suede exteriors, shearling linings, rounded toes, and thick soles. Quince also alleged that Deckers reused similar feature lists, “commercial success” narratives, and “Oprah’s Favorite Things” allegations across large numbers of cases.

The complaint ties those allegations directly to the earlier Quince merits ruling. Quince alleges that the October 2, 2025 summary judgment order in the underlying Deckers v. Quince action was the first developed-record test of Deckers’ product-design trade dress theories, and that the court found the Classic Ultra Mini and Tasman trade dresses generic and unprotectable. Quince further alleges that, after that ruling, Deckers continued filing actions asserting the same or similar trade dress definitions.

Deckers has moved to dismiss the antitrust complaint. Based on public materials reviewed, the merits of Quince’s antitrust theory do not appear to have been adjudicated as of publication. The important point for practitioners is that Quince is attempting to transform what began as an IP infringement defense into a broader attack on Deckers’ enforcement model.

Why Product-Design Trade Dress Is a Pressure Point
The case also illustrates why product-design trade dress is a recurring flashpoint. Unlike registered patent rights, unregistered trade dress claims may be asserted without an issued registration or examination. But product-design trade dress carries demanding requirements: the plaintiff must show, among other things, that the asserted design is nonfunctional, distinctive through secondary meaning, and not generic.

Quince’s complaint focuses on that gap between pleading and proof. It alleges that Deckers’ complaints are designed to survive early dismissal and push defendants into expensive discovery before courts reach protectability issues such as functionality, genericness, or secondary meaning. The complaint describes this as a “deferral-to-discovery” strategy, alleging that delay itself imposes costs and creates settlement pressure.

That theory is notable because it frames litigation cost as competitive harm. Quince alleges that Deckers’ enforcement campaign forced competitors to withdraw products, alter designs, incur defense costs, and miss seasonal sales windows. In Quince’s view, Deckers did not need to win every case; the cost and timing of litigation allegedly did anticompetitive work on its own.

The Fee Motion: “Exceptional Case” as a Second Front
After the underlying case concluded, Quince filed a motion seeking attorneys’ fees and non-taxable costs under 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a), 35 U.S.C. § 285, and the court’s inherent authority. Quince sought $1,532,253.00 in attorneys’ fees and $264,413.18 in non-taxable costs, for a total of $1,796,666.18 through July 8, 2026.

The motion argues that Quince prevailed on all claims: the trade dress claims were resolved by summary judgment and dismissal with prejudice, while the patent claim ended with a jury verdict that the ’161 patent was invalid. Quince also argued that the case was exceptional because Deckers allegedly pursued weak claims and litigated in an unreasonable manner.

The motion identifies several categories of alleged litigation conduct, including repeated relitigation of evidentiary issues, violations of local rules and court orders, subpoena-related conduct before trial, and alleged use of privilege as both a “sword and shield.” It also ties the fee request back to Quince’s broader theme: that Deckers’ litigation conduct in this case was part of a larger enforcement pattern.

As of publication, Quince’s fee motion does not appear to have been decided. But the motion itself is instructive. A prevailing defendant may use fee-shifting not only to recover costs, but also to tell a broader story about the plaintiff’s enforcement strategy.

The Larger Lesson: Enforcement Programs Need Litigation Discipline
For brand owners, the lesson is not that aggressive enforcement is improper. Many companies need to enforce design patents, trademarks, and trade dress rights to protect legitimate investments in product identity. But Deckers v. Quince shows that enforcement programs should be built with discipline, especially when they involve product-design trade dress.

Several practical points stand out.

1. Product-design trade dress claims should be defined with precision. Broad feature lists, brand-level reputation, and generalized commercial success may not be enough when the claim is tested on functionality, genericness, or secondary meaning. The asserted features should be clearly defined, plausibly nonfunctional, and tied to evidence of source identification.
2. Repeat enforcement should not become rote enforcement. A company’s prior complaints, settlement forms, injunction language, and public statements may become evidence in later disputes. When similar pleadings, feature lists, or settlement terms are reused across cases, defendants may argue that the pattern shows an effort to impose litigation costs rather than adjudicate protectable rights.
3. Litigation conduct matters. Fee motions often focus not only on the substantive strength of the claims, but also on how the case was litigated. Repeatedly relitigating issues, stretching local rules, or taking inconsistent positions can become part of an exceptional-case narrative.
4. Litigation cost is not always invisible. Quince’s antitrust theory depends heavily on the idea that litigation costs, seasonal timing, and product withdrawals can themselves have competitive effects. That theory may or may not succeed, but it is a reminder that enforcement pressure can become part of the merits story.
5. Settlements can have downstream consequences. Quince’s complaint alleges that Deckers used settlements and consent judgments as practical leverage in later disputes. For plaintiffs, that means settlement language should be drafted carefully; for defendants, it means negotiated acknowledgments may later be cited as part of an enforcement record.
6. An IP loss can trigger more than an adverse judgment. Here, the underlying case produced a jury invalidity finding, a fee motion, and a separate antitrust action challenging the enforcement campaign itself. Design patents, trademarks, and trade dress can work together, but they are not interchangeable. Efforts to use one form of protection to extend another can draw scrutiny, particularly when product designs include common or functional features.

Conclusion
The related Quince proceedings show how quickly the frame can shift. What began as Deckers’ enforcement of trade dress and design-patent rights became, after summary judgment and trial, a dispute about the enforcement campaign itself.

For rights holders, the message is straightforward: enforce, but enforce carefully. Strong IP rights deserve protection, but the strongest enforcement programs are disciplined, evidence-based, and tailored to rights that can withstand merits scrutiny. For accused infringers, the message is equally important: a defense strategy may extend beyond noninfringement and invalidity. In the right case, the enforcement pattern itself may become the counterclaim, the fee motion, or the next lawsuit.