LL Bean Stops Casual Footwear Sales Amid Skechers Patent Legal Battle

LL Bean has agreed to halt sales of its Freeport casual footwear line after a settlement with Skechers over design patent infringement claims.

In a recent legal settlement, LL Bean—the iconic retailer renowned for its outdoor gear and apparel—has agreed to stop selling a particular range of casual shoes.

This decision comes on the heels of a patent dispute with Skechers USA, which accused LL Bean of copying a design from its highly successful footwear line.

Legal Ruling and Injunction

U.S. District Judge Margaret Garnett issued an injunction on Thursday, which effectively prohibits LL Bean from designing, importing, or marketing any footwear that violates Skechers’ patents.

This restriction will remain in place until the last of the patents involved expires.

Details of the Dispute

The clash began when Skechers filed a lawsuit in July, asserting that LL Bean’s Freeport shoes—priced at $99 and inspired by the brand’s Maine heritage—indeed infringed upon patented designs related to “heel cups” designed to hug the back of the foot.

Skechers, which ranks as the third-largest shoe manufacturer worldwide, claimed LL Bean was unfairly capitalizing on the fame of its unique heel cup design, known for its sleek curves that mirror the contours of a heel.

Settlement and Confidentiality

Although the specific details of the settlement remain confidential, Skechers had also sought unspecified financial damages for the alleged infringement.

Notably, the patents in question will not expire until 2038.

So far, neither LL Bean’s representatives nor its legal advisors have made a public comment, nor have Skechers or its attorneys responded to requests for information.

Founded in 1912, LL Bean has a rich history in outdoor retail, while Skechers, established in 1992, is based in Manhattan Beach, California.

The legal proceedings are officially titled Skechers USA Inc et al v LL Bean Inc, and are being heard in the Southern District of New York under case number 24-05336.

(Report by Jonathan Stempel in New York; edited by Diane Craft)

Source: Insurancejournal.com