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”
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Greer, Burns & Crain, Ltd.
• Case Identification: 1:25-cv-00181, N.D. Ill., 01/14/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper because the Defendants are said to target business activities toward U.S. consumers, including those in Illinois, through interactive e-commerce stores that offer shipping to the state.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ unauthorized hair styling and hair care apparatuses infringe two of its U.S. design patents.
• Technical Context: The dispute is in the consumer personal care appliance market, where product aesthetics and brand recognition are significant drivers of consumer choice.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint is filed against a collective of unnamed e-commerce operators, identified only by their seller aliases on an attached schedule. This procedural posture is common in actions targeting alleged networks of online counterfeiters. The patents-in-suit are each subject to a terminal disclaimer.

Case Timeline

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: The patent addresses the need for a new, original, and ornamental design for an article of manufacture, specifically a hair styling apparatus (D'642 Patent, CLAIM).
• The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific visual appearance of a hair styling apparatus. The design is characterized by the overall configuration and combination of ornamental features, including a main cylindrical body, a tapered end with a textured grip pattern, specific circular and oblong button shapes and their placement on the body, and a distinctive flared attachment at the tip with grooved details (D'642 Patent, Figs. 1-7). The claimed design is what is shown in solid lines in the patent figures (D'642 Patent, DESCRIPTION, col. 2:14-17).
• Technical Importance: The complaint alleges that these patented designs are distinctive, broadly recognized by consumers, and associated with the quality and innovation expected from the Dyson brand (Compl. ¶8).

Key Claims at a Glance

• Design patents contain a single claim. The asserted claim is for "The ornamental design for a hair styling and hair care apparatus, as shown and described" (D'642 Patent, CLAIM, col. 2:9-11).
• The key ornamental features defining the design include:
  • The overall elongated, wand-like shape.
  • The specific arrangement and shape of the controls on the main body.
  • The textured grip portion near the base.
  • The distinct, larger-diameter attachment head with fluted or channeled sides.

U.S. Design Patent No. D852,415 - Hair styling and hair care apparatus (Issued June 25, 2019)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the need for a new, original, and ornamental design for a hair styling apparatus (D'415 Patent, CLAIM).
• The Patented Solution: The patent claims the ornamental design for the main body or handle of a hair styling apparatus. The design features a cylindrical body, a particular arrangement of circular and oblong buttons, and a textured grip section near the end where a cord would attach (D'415 Patent, Figs. 1-7). Unlike the '642 Patent, this design does not include the flared attachment tip; the broken lines in the figures indicate that elements such as the cord and any potential tip attachment are not part of the claimed design (D'415 Patent, DESCRIPTION, col. 1:63-66).
• Technical Importance: This design is alleged to be one of the "Dyson Designs" that are "enormously popular and even iconic" and have become "instantly recognizable" to the purchasing public (Compl. ¶5).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The single asserted claim is for "The ornamental design for a hair styling and hair care apparatus, as shown and described" (D'415 Patent, CLAIM, col. 1:57-59).
• The key ornamental features defining the design include:
  • The elongated, cylindrical form of the main handle.
  • The specific placement of two circular buttons and one oblong button.
  • The textured, cross-hatched pattern on the grip portion of the handle.

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). These products are allegedly sold by Defendants through numerous e-commerce stores operating under various "Seller Aliases" on platforms such as Amazon, eBay, AliExpress, and Temu (Compl. ¶¶3, 12).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges these are hair styling tools that embody Dyson's patented designs (Compl. ¶3). The Defendants are alleged to be part of a network of online sellers who use tactics to conceal their identities, such as operating under multiple aliases and using false registration information, to sell these products to consumers in the United States (Compl. ¶¶11, 16, 18). Figure 1 from the '642 patent, reproduced in the complaint, depicts the ornamental design that the accused products allegedly copy (Compl. p. 4).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not contain a traditional claim chart exhibit. It alleges that the Infringing Products are "the same unauthorized and unlicensed product" that infringes the "Dyson Designs" by embodying the ornamental features shown in the patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶3). The infringement test for a design patent is whether an "ordinary observer," giving the matter the attention a purchaser usually gives, would be deceived into purchasing the accused product believing it to be the patented design.

The complaint lacks specific photographic evidence of the accused products, referencing a non-included "Exhibit 1" (Compl. ¶3). The infringement allegations rest on the assertion that the products sold by Defendants are visually identical to the designs claimed in the patents. The complaint reproduces figures from the patents to serve as exemplars of the infringed designs (Compl. pp. 4-7).

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Factual Question: The central issue will be a direct visual comparison between the accused products and the patented designs. Without images of the accused products, it is not possible to analyze potential differences. The case will depend on evidence showing what products were actually sold by the Defendants.
  • Scope Questions: A potential dispute may arise over the scope of the claimed designs. The '642 and '415 patents use broken lines to disclaim certain features (e.g., the power cord). A court would need to determine if the alleged similarity between the products rests on the claimed ornamental features (solid lines) or the unclaimed functional/environmental features (broken lines).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In design patent litigation, the "claim" is understood to be the visual design itself as depicted in the drawings, rather than a set of text-based limitations. Formal claim construction is uncommon. The primary issue is interpreting the scope of the claimed design.

• The "Term": The overall "ornamental design" for the hair styling apparatus.
• Context and Importance: The scope of what is considered "ornamental" is critical. Infringement requires that the accused product appropriates the novel aesthetic features of the patented design, not merely its utilitarian aspects. Practitioners may focus on distinguishing the claimed ornamental features from any underlying functional elements to determine if the designs are substantially similar as a whole.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party may argue that the claim covers the overall visual impression created by the unique combination of all elements shown in solid lines. The complaint supports this by referring to the designs as "iconic" and "instantly recognizable," suggesting a holistic commercial impression that has been copied (Compl. ¶5).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party may argue that the claim is limited to the precise ornamental features depicted and nothing more. The use of broken lines in the patent figures explicitly disclaims subject matter, narrowing the scope of the claim (D'642 Patent, col. 2:14-17). Any differences in the claimed solid-line features between the patented design and the accused product, however minor, could be argued to defeat a finding of substantial similarity in the eyes of an ordinary observer.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes a passing reference to indirect infringement and the prayer for relief seeks to enjoin "aiding, abetting, [or] contributing to" infringement (Compl. ¶25; p. 13, ¶1(b)). However, the factual allegations primarily support a theory of direct infringement by the Defendants for making, using, offering for sale, and selling the accused products (Compl. ¶25).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants' infringement was willful (Compl. ¶22). This allegation is based on the assertion that Defendants are "working to knowingly and willfully import, distribute, offer for sale, and sell Infringing Products" (Compl. ¶21). The complaint further alleges that Defendants operate in a coordinated manner, using tactics like multiple aliases and offshore accounts to evade enforcement, which may suggest knowledge of their infringing activity (Compl. ¶¶18-20).

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

• The "Ordinary Observer" Test: The central question will be factual: will discovery produce evidence showing that the accused products sold by Defendants are "substantially the same" as the designs claimed in the '642 and '415 patents in the eye of an ordinary observer? The outcome will depend on a direct visual comparison.
• Scope of Protection: A key legal and factual issue will be the scope of the design patents. The analysis will require distinguishing the claimed ornamental aspects (solid lines) from the disclaimed functional and environmental aspects (broken lines) to determine whether the "novel features" of the patented designs have been appropriated.
• Procedural Viability and Enforcement: A significant practical question is whether Plaintiff can successfully identify the anonymous Defendants, establish personal jurisdiction, and prove that each specific seller alias is responsible for selling products that infringe the asserted designs within the United States.