Dyson Technology Ltd v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Dyson Technology Limited (United Kingdom)
  • Defendant: The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule “A” (People's Republic of China or other foreign jurisdictions)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Greer, Burns & Crain, Ltd.
• Case Identification: 1:23-cv-02976, N.D. Ill., 05/11/2023
• Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on Defendants’ alleged operation of interactive e-commerce stores that target business activities and sales to consumers in the United States, including Illinois.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ unauthorized hair styling and hair care apparatuses infringe a U.S. design patent covering the ornamental appearance of a Dyson hair product.
• Technical Context: The dispute is in the high-end personal care appliance market, where distinctive product design is a significant aspect of brand identity and consumer recognition.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint is structured as a "Schedule A" action, a strategy often used to pursue numerous, often anonymous, online sellers of allegedly infringing goods. Plaintiff alleges these sellers operate in concert, using tactics to conceal their identities and evade enforcement.

Case Timeline

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

• Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D853,642, "Hair styling and hair care apparatus," issued July 9, 2019.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: Design patents protect the ornamental appearance of an article of manufacture rather than a technical problem. The complaint frames the context by alleging that Dyson products are known for "distinctive patented designs" which are "broadly recognized by consumers" and associated with "quality and innovation" (Compl. ¶8).
• The Patented Solution: The patent claims "the ornamental design for a hair styling and hair care apparatus, as shown and described" (’642 Patent, col. 2:57-59). The design, illustrated in seven figures, consists of an elongated, cylindrical main body with a tapered front end, a textured band near the base where the power cord attaches, and specific arrangements of circular buttons on the body (D’642 Patent, Figs. 1-7). The overall visual impression is one of a sleek, modern, wand-like appliance.
• Technical Importance: The complaint alleges that the distinctive designs of Dyson products have become "iconic" and "instantly recognizable" to the public, symbolizing high quality and making them commercially valuable (Compl. ¶5).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The single claim of the ’642 Patent is asserted.
• The claim protects the overall "ornamental design for a hair styling and hair care apparatus" as depicted in the patent’s figures, including:
  • The overall wand-like, cylindrical shape.
  • The tapered front end.
  • The specific placement and appearance of controls on the main body.
  • The textured band located at the rear of the apparatus.
  • The transition from the main body to the power cord.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused instrumentalities are "unauthorized and unlicensed" hair styling and hair care apparatuses, referred to as the "Infringing Products" (Compl. ¶3).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that the Defendants operate e-commerce stores under various "Seller Aliases" on platforms including Amazon, eBay, AliExpress, Walmart, and Etsy (Compl. ¶12). These stores allegedly offer for sale, sell, and import the Infringing Products, targeting consumers throughout the United States (Compl. ¶12). The complaint further alleges that the e-commerce stores are designed to appear as authorized retailers and use content and images that make it difficult for consumers to distinguish them from legitimate sellers (Compl. ¶15).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide a claim chart. The infringement theory is based on the "ordinary observer" test for design patents, which asks whether an ordinary observer, familiar with the prior art, would be deceived into purchasing the accused product believing it to be the patented design.

The complaint alleges that the Defendants are "making, using, offering for sale, selling, and/or importing into the United States...Infringing Products that infringe directly and/or indirectly the ornamental design claimed in the Dyson Design" (Compl. ¶25). The "Dyson Design" is defined as the design claimed in the ’642 Patent (Compl. ¶8). To illustrate the patented design, the complaint includes a table reproducing several figures from the patent. For example, the complaint provides a top perspective view of the patented design from the ’642 Patent's Figure 1 to illustrate the claimed ornamental features (Compl. p. 4). The core of the infringement allegation is that the accused products are visually substantially similar to the design shown in these figures, causing them to be confused with genuine Dyson products.

Identified Points of Contention

• Visual Similarity: A central question for the court will be whether the overall visual appearance of the accused products is substantially the same as the ornamental design claimed in the ’642 Patent, such that an ordinary observer would be deceived. This will involve a direct comparison of the accused products with the patent's figures.
• Scope of Protection: The analysis may require distinguishing between the ornamental features protected by the patent and any functional aspects of the hair styler's design, as only ornamental features are protected by a design patent.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In design patent litigation, claim construction does not focus on interpreting textual terms, as the claim is defined by the patent's drawings. The claim of the ’642 Patent is for "the ornamental design for a hair styling and hair care apparatus, as shown and described" (’642 Patent, col. 2:57-59). The scope of this claim is determined by the visual appearance of the apparatus depicted in Figures 1-7 of the patent. Therefore, there are no specific textual claim terms that would be the subject of a traditional claim construction dispute. The analysis will instead focus on the overall visual impression conveyed by the patent's figures as a whole.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

• The complaint alleges that Defendants' products infringe "directly and/or indirectly" (Compl. ¶25) and seeks to enjoin those "aiding, abetting, contributing to, or otherwise assisting" in the infringement (Compl. Prayer for Relief ¶1(b)). The factual allegations supporting this are that Defendants operate e-commerce stores through which they sell the allegedly infringing products to consumers.

Willful Infringement

• The complaint alleges that Defendants' infringement was willful (Compl. ¶22). This allegation is supported by claims that Defendants are "working in active concert to knowingly and willfully" sell the Infringing Products (Compl. ¶21) and that they communicate and participate in online forums regarding tactics for "evading detection, pending litigation, and potential new lawsuits" (Compl. ¶19).

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

1. A central issue will be one of visual comparison: Applying the "ordinary observer" test, is the overall ornamental appearance of the Defendants' accused products substantially the same as the design claimed in the ’642 Patent, or are there sufficient visual differences to avoid a finding of infringement?
2. A significant procedural question will be the enforceability of any judgment: Given the allegations that Defendants are a network of anonymous, foreign-based entities using tactics to conceal their identities and assets (Compl. ¶¶11, 19, 20), a key challenge will be identifying the responsible parties and effectively enforcing any resulting monetary or injunctive relief.
3. A key remedial question will be the measure of damages: The case raises the question of whether Dyson can prove and recover Defendants' total profits under 35 U.S.C. § 289, a remedy specific to design patent infringement, which may be challenging to calculate given the alleged nature of the Defendants' operations.