DCT

1:24-cv-03399

Dyson Technology Ltd v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations

Log In

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: 1:24-cv-03399, N.D. Ill., 04/26/2024
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged based on Defendants targeting business activities toward consumers in Illinois through interactive e-commerce stores operating under various seller aliases.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ unauthorized battery packs, sold through various online marketplaces, infringe a U.S. design patent covering the ornamental appearance of a Dyson battery pack.
  • Technical Context: The dispute centers on the ornamental design of battery packs, which are key components for popular consumer electronics such as cordless vacuums.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint is filed against a group of unidentified partnerships and associations that allegedly operate numerous e-commerce storefronts under fictitious aliases to conceal their identities and evade enforcement.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2013-02-18 D710,299 Patent Priority Date
2014-08-05 D710299 Patent Issue Date
2024-04-26 Complaint Filing Date

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

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D710,299, “BATTERY PACK,” issued August 5, 2014. (Compl. ¶ 8).

U.S. Design Patent No. D710,299 - “BATTERY PACK”

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Design patents protect ornamental appearance rather than functional solutions. The complaint suggests that Dyson's products are distinguished by their "unique and innovative design," which has become "enormously popular and even iconic" and "instantly recognizable" to the public (Compl. ¶ 5). The '299 Patent protects a specific ornamental design that contributes to this brand identity.
  • The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific ornamental design for a battery pack as depicted in its seven figures ('299 Patent, CLAIM). The design consists of a main rectangular body with rounded edges, from which an angled, multi-faceted connection tower rises. The patent explicitly notes that elements shown in broken lines illustrate environmental structure and are not part of the claimed design, thereby defining the scope of the protected appearance ('299 Patent, DESCRIPTION).
  • Technical Importance: The commercial importance of the design is its alleged role in creating a distinctive product appearance that consumers associate with the quality and innovation of the Dyson brand (Compl. ¶¶ 5, 8).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The single asserted claim is for "the ornamental design for a battery pack, as shown and described" ('299 Patent, CLAIM).
  • The core ornamental features comprising the design include:
    • A rectangular base section with rounded vertical edges.
    • An upright connecting structure that is angled relative to the base.
    • Specific contours, proportions, and surface details as shown in solid lines in the patent figures.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are "the battery pack shown in Exhibit 1," referred to as the "Infringing Products" (Compl. ¶ 3).

Functionality and Market Context

The accused products are unauthorized battery packs allegedly styled after the patented "Dyson Design" (Compl. ¶ 8). They are offered for sale and sold through numerous e-commerce stores operating under "Seller Aliases" on marketplace platforms including Amazon, eBay, AliExpress, and others (Compl. ¶ 12). The complaint alleges these storefronts are designed to appear as authorized retailers and often use content and images that make it difficult for consumers to distinguish them from genuine channels (Compl. ¶ 15).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

Design patent infringement is assessed from the perspective of an "ordinary observer." The complaint asserts that the accused products infringe the ornamental design claimed in the '299 Patent. The complaint's visual evidence for the patented design is FIG. 1 of the patent, which shows a perspective view of the claimed battery pack design (Compl. ¶ 8, p. 4). However, the complaint does not contain images of the accused products themselves, instead referencing an external "Exhibit 1" (Compl. ¶ 3).

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Evidentiary Question: A threshold issue for the court will be to visually compare the accused products sold by the Defendants with the design claimed in the '299 Patent. The success of the infringement claim depends on whether the accused products are, in fact, visually similar to the patented design.
    • Scope Questions: The infringement analysis will turn on the "ordinary observer" test: whether an ordinary observer, familiar with the prior art, would be deceived into purchasing an accused product believing it is the patented design. The focus will be on the overall visual impression created by the products, limited to the features shown in solid lines in the '299 Patent figures.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In a design patent case, claim construction does not involve interpreting textual terms as in a utility patent. Instead, the "claim" is understood through the patent's drawings. The scope of the claim is the visual appearance of the design as a whole, as depicted in the figures.

  • The Term: "the ornamental design for a battery pack"
  • Context and Importance: The central issue is the scope of the visual impression protected by the patent. Practitioners may focus on the distinction between the claimed and unclaimed features to properly frame the "ordinary observer" test.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim covers the overall ornamental design "as shown and described," suggesting that the visual impression as a whole, rather than any single feature, is what is protected ('299 Patent, CLAIM).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent explicitly disclaims matter shown in broken lines, stating they "are included for the purpose of illustrating environmental structure and form no part of the claimed design" ('299 Patent, DESCRIPTION). This limits the scope of protection to only those elements depicted in solid lines, and any infringement analysis must disregard the unclaimed environmental structure.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants infringe "directly and/or indirectly" (Compl. ¶ 25) and prays for an injunction against "aiding, abetting, [or] contributing to" infringement (Compl. p. 13, ¶ 1(b)). The factual basis alleged is that Defendants are "working in active concert" to manufacture and sell the infringing products as part of an interrelated network (Compl. ¶ 21).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants' infringement was "willful" (Compl. ¶ 22). This allegation is supported by claims that Defendants act "knowingly and willfully" in concert (Compl. ¶ 21) and engage in tactics to conceal their identities and evade enforcement, such as using fictitious aliases and participating in online forums discussing such tactics (Compl. ¶¶ 17-19).

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

  • A central procedural question will be one of identification and jurisdiction: can the Plaintiff successfully identify the operators behind the "Seller Aliases," pierce their anonymity, and establish personal jurisdiction over these alleged foreign-based entities?
  • The core substantive issue will be one of visual comparison: assuming the accused products are identified, is their ornamental design "substantially the same" as the design claimed in the '299 patent in the eye of an ordinary observer, such that the observer would be deceived?
  • A key evidentiary question will be whether the "Infringing Products" referenced in the complaint are indeed the products being sold by the numerous, disparate storefronts listed in Schedule A, and whether their designs are uniform enough to support a single infringement theory against the collective Defendants.