DCT

1:24-cv-06170

Dyson Technology Ltd v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations

Log In
Key Events
Amended Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:24-cv-06170, N.D. Ill., 04/11/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged based on Defendants targeting business activities toward consumers in the United States, including Illinois, through interactive e-commerce stores, offering shipping to Illinois, and causing tortious injury within the state.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ hair styling apparatus infringes a U.S. design patent and associated trademarks for Plaintiff's Dyson Airwrap® product.
  • Technical Context: The dispute is in the high-end consumer hair care appliance market, involving the ornamental design of a popular hair styling device.
  • Key Procedural History: The filing is a First Amended Complaint. The action remains pending against the two named Defendants, while all other originally named defendants have reportedly been dismissed or had default judgments entered against them.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2017-05-30 D'642 Patent Priority Date
2018 Dyson Airwrap Product Launched
2019-07-09 U.S. Patent No. D853,642 Issued
2025-04-11 First Amended 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

  • Problem Addressed: Design patents protect the novel, non-functional, ornamental appearance of an article of manufacture. The objective is to create a new, original, and ornamental design for a hair styling apparatus that is visually distinct from prior designs (Compl. ¶8).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific ornamental design for a "hair styling and hair care apparatus" as depicted in its seven figures (D’642 Patent, Figs. 1-7). The claimed design, which the complaint refers to as the "Dyson Design," consists of the overall visual appearance of the device, including its elongated cylindrical body, the proportions of its main handle and detachable head, the placement and circular shape of the control buttons, a textured grip pattern at the base, and a conical cord strain relief (Compl. ¶8; D’642 Patent, Figs. 1-7).
  • Technical Importance: The complaint alleges that the distinctive patented design is broadly recognized by consumers and associated with the quality and innovation of Dyson's products, making it a key driver of the product's commercial success and recognizability (Compl. ¶¶8, 15).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • Design patents contain a single claim. The asserted claim is: "The ornamental design for a hair styling and hair care apparatus, as shown and described." (D'642 Patent, Claim).
  • The scope of this claim is defined by the visual features depicted in the solid lines of the patent's drawings, including:
    • The overall wand-like configuration and proportions.
    • A cylindrical body with multiple sections.
    • Specific placement and appearance of controls on the handle.
    • A textured surface on the lower portion of the handle.
    • The shape of the detachable styling head and the base where the power cord attaches.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused instrumentality is a hair styling apparatus, identified as the "Infringing Product" and sold on Amazon.com under ASIN B0CTH29YCY by the Defendants (Compl. ¶3, ¶36 & n.8).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges the accused product is a hair styling device that is advertised and sold on e-commerce platforms to consumers in the United States (Compl. ¶25, ¶27). A photograph provided in the complaint shows a device visually similar to the Dyson Airwrap®, branded with the name "firwero" (Compl. p. 15, Figure 1).
  • The complaint provides a screenshot of marketing materials for the accused product which use terms such as "air wrap curler" and "Coanda Technology-enabled," directly referencing terminology associated with Dyson's commercial product (Compl. p. 16, Figure 2). This screenshot from the product listing describes the "4 in 1 Hair Stylers" including an "Air Wrap" function for creating "voluminous curls or waves" (Compl. p. 16, Figure 2).
  • The complaint alleges Defendants are part of a larger network of online sellers who use multiple aliases and storefronts to sell infringing goods while concealing their identities (Compl. ¶¶24, 31, 32).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

D853,642 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (Visual Feature from D'642 Patent) Alleged Infringing Functionality (Visual Feature of Accused Product) Complaint Citation Patent Citation
The overall ornamental design for a hair styling and hair care apparatus The accused product is alleged to embody an ornamental design that is substantially the same as the patented Dyson Design, creating a similar overall visual impression. ¶¶3, 42 Figs. 1-7
Elongated, cylindrical wand-like body with distinct upper and lower sections The accused product features an elongated, cylindrical body with visually similar proportions and sectional divisions as shown in the side-by-side comparison. ¶37; p. 15, Fig. 1 Figs. 1-3
Specific arrangement of circular control buttons on the main body The accused product displays control buttons in a similar location and arrangement on the handle. ¶37; p. 15, Fig. 1 Fig. 6
Textured grip pattern on the lower portion of the handle The accused product incorporates a textured grip pattern at the base of the handle. ¶37; p. 15, Fig. 1 Figs. 1-3
Conical shape of the strain relief at the power cord entry The accused product features a similarly shaped strain relief where the power cord enters the device body. ¶37; p. 15, Fig. 1 Figs. 2-3

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: The central question for design patent 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. The dispute will focus on whether the overall visual impression of the accused product is "substantially the same" as the claimed design in the '642 Patent.
  • Technical Questions: A key question is whether the differences between the accused product and the patented design—such as potential minor variations in button shape, surface finish, or the prominent "firwero" branding on the accused product—are sufficient to create a different overall visual impression for the ordinary observer (Compl. p. 15, Figure 1). The infringement analysis legally requires a comparison between the accused product and the patent's drawings, not the plaintiff's commercial embodiment, though the complaint's visual evidence compares the two commercial products.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "The ornamental design for a hair styling and hair care apparatus, as shown and described."
  • Context and Importance: In design patent litigation, the claim is the design itself as depicted in the drawings. The construction of the claim involves determining the scope of the protected design and its overall visual impression. This determination is fundamental, as the infringement test hinges on a comparison of this claimed design to the design of the accused product.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party arguing for infringement may contend that the claim covers the overall shape, configuration, and aesthetic impression of the device, and that minor variations in surface detail do not alter this overall visual impression. The argument would be that the key ornamental features creating the design's identity have all been appropriated (D'642 Patent, Figs. 1-3).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party arguing against infringement may focus on the specific details shown in the solid lines of the patent drawings, asserting that these details strictly define the claim's scope. Any deviation in the accused product, such as the shape of the buttons or the texture of the grip, could be argued as a substantial difference that creates a distinct visual impression and avoids infringement (D'642 Patent, Figs. 4-7).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: While the primary allegations are for direct infringement through making, using, and selling the products (Compl. ¶42), the prayer for relief also seeks to enjoin acts of "aiding, abetting, contributing to, or otherwise assisting anyone" in infringing, which implicates a theory of indirect infringement (Compl. p. 20).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants' infringement was "knowingly and willfully" committed (Compl. ¶35, ¶38). This allegation is supported by claims that the Defendants operate as part of a network of infringers who are aware of Dyson's rights and use tactics to evade enforcement, and that the copying of the design and associated marketing language is intentional (Compl. ¶¶33, 36).

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

  • A core issue will be one of visual identity: In the eye of an ordinary observer, is the overall ornamental design of the accused "firwero" product substantially the same as the design claimed in the '642 patent, such that the observer would be deceived, or do the differences in branding and minor details create a sufficiently distinct visual impression to avoid infringement?
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of intent and profits: Assuming infringement is found, what evidence will establish that the infringement was willful, potentially justifying enhanced damages? Furthermore, as this is a design patent case, the court may be asked to determine the "total profit" made by the Defendants from the infringing articles, as provided for under 35 U.S.C. § 289.