Quince’s antitrust challenge to UGG owner Deckers’ “anticompetitive” trade dress enforcement strategy has hit an early setback. A federal court has dismissed Quince’s antitrust lawsuit against Deckers Outdoor Corporation, finding that the retailer has not adequately pleaded that Deckers’ litigation activity falls within the “sham litigation” exception to the Noerr-Pennington doctrine. The court granted Deckers’ dismissal with leave to amend, which likely means that the case is far from over.
In a newly-issued order, U.S. Magistrate Judge Susan van Keulen of the Northern District of California held that Quince’s complaint does not sufficiently identify which Deckers lawsuits or proceedings form the basis of its sham-litigation theory or clearly establish which sham-litigation framework it is invoking. Quince – which alleges that Deckers engaged in a broader pattern of sham trade dress litigation aimed at restricting competition – has until September 17 to file an amended complaint.
The case got its start in February 2026 when Quince filed suit against Deckers, accusing it of attempting to monopolize the “U.S. market for sheepskin- and shearling-lined casual footwear” through a campaign of trade dress litigation. Quince alleges that Deckers has used claims to unprotectable product-design trade dress rights to raise competitors’ costs, force product withdrawals and redesigns, and maintain its position in that alleged market.
Deckers moved to dismiss the case, arguing in part that its litigation activity is protected by the Noerr-Pennington doctrine, which generally protects petitioning activity, including lawsuits, from statutory liability – subject to exceptions for sham litigation.
The Sham-Litigation Question
Focusing on Quince’s claim that the sham-litigation exception applies here, Judge van Keulen addressed two sham-litigation frameworks in her August 27 order. Under Professional Real Estate Investors, Inc. v. Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. (“PREI”), the exception can apply to objectively baseless litigation brought with an unlawful motive, while USS-POSCO Industries v. Contra Costa County Building & Construction Trades Council (“POSCO”) addresses a series of proceedings brought without regard to their merits and for an unlawful purpose.
The problem, according to the court, is that Quince’s complaint uses PREI terminology, while its opposition to Deckers’ motion to dismiss characterized the case as a POSCO-style “pattern-of-litigation” claim. Judge van Keulen also found that Quince had not clearly identified which Deckers proceedings make up the alleged series of lawsuits underlying its POSCO claim. Without that clarity, she declined to decide whether Quince had adequately pleaded the POSCO exception or to further analyze the PREI factors.
The October 2025 ruling in Deckers’ trade dress and patent infringement case against Quince figures prominently in Quince’s theory. In that case, the court granted Quince summary judgment on its genericness defenses to Deckers’ asserted Tasman and Classic Ultra Mini trade dress claims, while denying Deckers summary judgment on its trade dress claims based on unresolved functionality issues. Quince alleges that Deckers nevertheless continued to assert the same Tasman definition and materially similar trade dress definitions in subsequent litigation.
Importantly, the August 27 order does not decide whether Deckers’ broader enforcement practices violate the Sherman Act. The court declined to address Deckers’ arguments on antitrust injury and standing or whether Quince adequately pleaded the elements of attempted monopolization, leaving those issues for a potential challenge to an amended complaint.
THE BIGGER PICTURE: Quince’s antitrust case is the latest front in its broader fight with Deckers over UGG lookalikes, with Quince alleging that Deckers has used intellectual property rights to restrict competing products. In the underlying infringement case, Deckers ultimately came away without relief: After its Tasman and Classic Ultra Mini trade dress claims were cut back in October 2025, a jury found in June that Quince infringed Deckers’ remaining Classic Ultra Mini design patent but that the patent was invalid.
Quince is now challenging Deckers’ enforcement strategy itself. It argues that Deckers has used IP claims to exert control over common elements of the shearling-footwear category and restrict competing products, an argument that echoes its position in the infringement litigation that Deckers was seeking “a monopoly over an entire category of boots.”
The antitrust case shifts the focus from whether particular IP rights are protectable to whether a broader enforcement campaign can amount to anticompetitive conduct.
The case is Last Brand, Inc. d/b/a Quince v. Deckers Outdoor Corp., 5:26-cv-01540 (N.D. Cal.).
Share
