DCT

1:24-cv-04085

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” (Jurisdictions Unknown, alleged to be primarily People's Republic of China or other foreign jurisdictions)
    • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Greer, Burns & Crain, Ltd.
  • Case Identification: 1:24-cv-04085, N.D. Ill., 05/17/2024
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted on the basis that Defendants target business activities and sales to consumers in the United States, including Illinois, through interactive e-commerce stores.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that numerous unidentified e-commerce operators are selling hair styling apparatuses that infringe its U.S. design patent.
  • Technical Context: The case concerns the ornamental design of high-end consumer hair care appliances, a market where distinctive product appearance is a significant driver of brand recognition and value.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention prior litigation or administrative proceedings concerning the patent-in-suit. The case structure, targeting numerous unidentified online sellers, is characteristic of enforcement actions against counterfeit or infringing goods sold on major e-commerce platforms.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2017-05-30 D'642 Patent Priority Date
2019-07-09 U.S. Patent No. D853,642 Issued
2024-05-17 Complaint Filed

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

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

The Invention Explained

Design patents protect the ornamental, non-functional appearance of an article of manufacture. This patent does not claim a method of operation or a technical innovation but rather the specific visual characteristics of a hair styling device.

  • The Patented Design: The patent claims "the ornamental design for a hair styling and hair care apparatus, as shown and described" (D’642 Patent, Claim). The design, illustrated in seven figures, consists of an elongated, cylindrical main body with a tapered, fluted head section at one end and a power cord emerging from a textured, wider base at the other end. The main body features several small, circular or oval control buttons (D’642 Patent, FIG. 1, FIG. 6).
  • Design Importance: The complaint alleges that Dyson's product designs have become "enormously popular and even iconic," making them "instantly recognizable" to the purchasing public and a symbol of high quality (Compl. ¶5). This distinctiveness is central to the product's market identity (Compl. ¶8).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The patent contains a single claim for the ornamental design as depicted in the patent's drawings.
  • The claim covers the visual appearance of the apparatus, including its overall shape, the proportions of the body, head, and base, and the specific placement and configuration of surface features like buttons and texturing.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused products are identified as "hair styling and hair care apparatus" that infringe the patented design (the "Infringing Product") (Compl. ¶3).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges that Defendants are e-commerce store operators who make, use, offer for sale, sell, and/or import these Infringing Products into the United States through online marketplace platforms such as Amazon, eBay, AliExpress, and Temu (Compl. ¶¶3, 12).
  • These e-commerce stores are designed to appear as authorized retailers to "unknowing consumers" and often use images that make it difficult to distinguish the accused products from genuine Dyson products (Compl. ¶15). The complaint alleges the Infringing Products for sale by the various seller aliases "bear similar irregularities and indicia of being unauthorized to one another," suggesting a common manufacturing source (Compl. ¶18). The complaint includes a perspective view of the patented design, showing its overall elongated, cylindrical shape with a tapered head and textured base (Compl. p. 4, FIG. 1).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the accused products infringe the D'642 patent. For design patents, the legal test for infringement is whether an "ordinary observer," familiar with the prior art, would be deceived into purchasing the accused product believing it to be the patented design. This analysis focuses on the overall visual impression of the product rather than a list of technical elements.

The complaint alleges that Defendants are selling the "same unauthorized and unlicensed product" that embodies the patented design (Compl. ¶3). The core of the infringement allegation is that the visual appearance of the Infringing Products is substantially the same as the ornamental design claimed in the D'642 patent (Compl. ¶25). The complaint provides images from the D'642 patent itself as representative of the "Dyson Design" being infringed, asserting that the accused products copy this appearance (Compl. pp. 4-5). The complaint does not contain a side-by-side comparison or detailed breakdown, resting on the assertion that the accused products incorporate the patented design.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In design patent litigation, there are no "claim terms" to construe in the traditional sense. The claim is understood through the patent’s drawings. A court would "construe" the claim by issuing a verbal description of the ornamental features shown in the figures.

  • The "Claim": The ornamental design for a hair styling and hair care apparatus as shown in Figures 1-7.
  • Context and Importance: The central issue will be the scope of the design patent's protection. The analysis will focus on the overall visual appearance created by the combination of features, rather than any single feature in isolation. Practitioners may focus on which specific features are considered ornamental and which, if any, are dictated by function.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation: The scope of the design is defined entirely by the solid lines in the patent's drawings.
    • Evidence for Broader Scope: A party might argue that the overall impression of an elongated, slender wand with a distinct tapered head and textured base is the dominant visual element, and minor variations in button shape or placement on an accused product do not alter this overall appearance.
    • Evidence for Narrower Scope: A party could argue that the design is a narrow one, defined by the specific combination of all its depicted elements: the precise fluting on the head, the exact number and arrangement of the control buttons, the particular texture on the base, and the specific proportional relationship between the sections (D’642 Patent, FIGS. 1-7).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint pleads that Defendants are "directly and/or indirectly" infringing (Compl. ¶25). The prayer for relief also seeks to enjoin "aiding, abetting, contributing to, or otherwise assisting anyone" in infringing (Compl., Prayer for Relief ¶1(b)). The factual allegations, however, focus on the Defendants' own acts of making, using, selling, and importing, which constitute direct infringement.
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is explicitly alleged (Compl. ¶22). The basis for this allegation is that Defendants are "working in active concert to knowingly and willfully manufacture, import, distribute, offer for sale, and sell Infringing Products" (Compl. ¶21). The complaint further alleges that Defendants use tactics like fictitious aliases and communication in private chat rooms to evade detection, which may be presented as evidence of knowledge and intent (Compl. ¶¶18, 19).

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

  1. A Procedural Question of Enforcement: A primary challenge will be procedural: can the Plaintiff successfully litigate against a large, diffuse group of foreign-based, anonymous online sellers? The case's progression may depend heavily on the court's willingness to allow proceedings against "John Doe" style defendants and the effectiveness of enforcement actions against third-party online marketplaces.
  2. The Substantive Question of Visual Similarity: The core legal question will be one of infringement under the "ordinary observer" test. The court will need to determine if the accused products are substantially the same in overall ornamental appearance as the design claimed in the D'642 patent, considering the design as a whole.
  3. A Question of Scope: The outcome may turn on the perceived scope of the D'642 patent's design. The key issue for the court will be whether the patent protects the general concept of a wand-shaped hair styler or is limited to the very specific and particular combination of shapes, proportions, and surface details shown in the patent's figures.