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,” (Jurisdiction unknown; alleged to operate from the People's Republic of China or other foreign jurisdictions)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Greer, Burns & Crain, Ltd.
• Case Identification: 1:25-cv-00228, N.D. Ill., 01/15/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendants' e-commerce stores targeting and making sales to consumers in Illinois.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that numerous unidentified online sellers infringe two U.S. design patents covering the ornamental appearance of its hair styling apparatus by selling look-alike products.
• Technical Context: The lawsuit concerns the high-end personal care appliance market, where distinctive and recognizable product design is a significant aspect of brand identity and market value.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint's allegations against a collective of unidentified foreign entities suggest this action is part of a broader strategy by the plaintiff to enforce its intellectual property rights against sellers of counterfeit or infringing goods on major online marketplaces.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Design Patent No. D853,642 - "Hair Styling and Hair Care Apparatus"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. D853,642, "Hair Styling and Hair Care Apparatus," issued July 9, 2019.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The complaint does not articulate a technical problem but implicitly addresses the commercial need for a unique and distinctive ornamental product appearance to establish brand recognition in the consumer appliance market (Compl. ¶5, 8).
• The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific ornamental design for what appears to be a hair styling wand or attachment. The design is characterized by its overall configuration, including a smooth, cylindrical main body that transitions into a tapered, fluted, or grooved end piece, as depicted in the patent’s figures (D’642 Patent, Figs. 1-7). The complaint asserts this and other designs are "iconic" and broadly recognized by consumers (Compl. ¶5, 8).
• Technical Importance: The complaint alleges these patented designs are associated with the quality and innovation the public expects from the plaintiff's products, making their appearance a key commercial asset (Compl. ¶8).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The patent contains a single claim for "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 representations in the patent's seven figures, which show the article from various perspectives.

U.S. Design Patent No. D852,415 - "Hair Styling and Hair Care Apparatus"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. D852,415, "Hair Styling and Hair Care Apparatus," issued June 25, 2019.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: Similar to the '642 patent, the '415 patent seeks to protect a distinct ornamental design for a hair care product to differentiate it in a competitive marketplace (Compl. ¶5, 8).
• The Patented Solution: The '415 patent claims the ornamental design for a hand-held hair styling apparatus body. Its key visual features include a cylindrical handle, a specific arrangement of two circular buttons, a textured band near the power cord entry, and a perforated end cap (D’415 Patent, Figs. 1-7). The patent specifies that broken lines, such as those depicting the power cord, illustrate portions of the apparatus that are not part of the claimed design (D’415 Patent, "DESCRIPTION").
• Technical Importance: The complaint groups this design with the '642 patent's design, alleging it is a "distinctive patented design" that is "broadly recognized by consumers" (Compl. ¶8).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The patent asserts a single claim for "the ornamental design for a hair styling and hair care apparatus, as shown and described" (D’415 Patent, "CLAIM"). The claim's scope is determined by the solid-line drawings in the patent's figures.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are "hair styling and hair care apparatus" (the "Infringing Products") that are allegedly "unauthorized and unlicensed" (Compl. ¶3). These products are sold by the various unidentified Defendants through e-commerce stores operating under the "Seller Aliases" listed in the complaint's Schedule A (Compl. ¶2, 3).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint focuses on the visual appearance of the accused products rather than their technical operation, alleging they embody the patented "Dyson Designs" (Compl. ¶3, 8). These products are offered for sale on major online marketplace platforms such as Amazon, eBay, AliExpress, and Temu (Compl. ¶12). The complaint alleges Defendants design their e-commerce stores to appear as authorized retailers, making it difficult for consumers to distinguish them from legitimate sellers (Compl. ¶15). The complaint includes a table showing the claimed design of the '415 patent, including a perspective view that highlights its overall shape and button placement (Compl. p. 6, FIG. 1).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not contain a claim chart. The infringement theory is based on the "ordinary observer" test for design patents, which asks whether an ordinary observer would find the accused design to be substantially the same as the patented design.

D853,642 and D852,415 Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that Defendants' "Infringing Products" infringe the designs claimed in both the '642 and '415 patents (Compl. ¶3, 25). The core of the infringement allegation is that the ornamental appearance of the products sold by Defendants is substantially similar to the designs depicted in the patent figures, such that an ordinary purchaser would be deceived (Compl. ¶3). To illustrate the claimed designs, the complaint reproduces figures from the patents, such as the perspective views of the '642 patent's claimed design (Compl. p. 4, FIGS. 1-2). The legal test for infringement will involve a side-by-side comparison of the patented designs with the accused products.

Identified Points of Contention

• Visual Similarity: The central question will be a factual one: Are the accused products sold by the Defendants visually close enough to the designs claimed in the '642 and '415 patents to meet the "ordinary observer" standard for infringement? The resolution of this issue will depend on evidence of the accused products' actual appearance.
• Scope of Protection: A potential point of contention may be the scope of the patented designs in view of any prior art. If the field of hair styler designs is crowded, the scope of protection afforded to the patents may be narrow, requiring a very close resemblance for a finding of infringement. The complaint does not address prior art.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In design patent litigation, claim construction does not typically involve interpreting specific text-based terms. Instead, the "claim" is the design as a whole, as depicted in the patent's drawings. The analysis focuses on the scope of the claimed design.

• The "Claim": The overall ornamental design for a "hair styling and hair care apparatus" as shown in the solid-line portions of the figures for each patent.
• Context and Importance: The scope of the claim will be the central issue for determining infringement. The analysis will focus on the holistic visual impression of the design, not on a disaggregated list of features. Practitioners may focus on which aspects of the designs are ornamental versus purely functional, as functional elements are not protected by a design patent.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim in each patent covers the "ornamental design ... as shown and described," suggesting the protected intellectual property is the overall visual impression created by the combination of all depicted features in their specific arrangement (D'642 Patent, "CLAIM"; D'415 Patent, "CLAIM").
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The precise proportions, surface textures (e.g., the fluting on the '642 design), and specific shapes shown in the drawings define the limits of the design. The patents' use of broken lines to show elements like the power cord explicitly disclaims those features from the scope of the claimed design, narrowing its coverage (D'415 Patent, p. 1 "DESCRIPTION").

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes a passing allegation of products infringing "directly and/or indirectly" (Compl. ¶25) and requests an injunction against "aiding, abetting, [or] contributing to" infringement (Compl. Prayer for Relief ¶1(b)). However, it does not plead specific facts to support a standalone claim for either induced or contributory infringement.
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants’ infringement was and is "willful" (Compl. ¶22). This allegation is based on the assertion that Defendants acted "knowingly" (Compl. ¶21) and engaged in tactics to conceal their identities, such as operating under multiple fictitious aliases, which suggests an intent to evade detection and enforcement (Compl. ¶11, 18).

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

1. Design Similarity: The dispositive issue will be a factual comparison under the "ordinary observer" test. Is the overall ornamental appearance of the Defendants' various products substantially the same as the specific designs claimed in the '642 and '415 patents? The outcome will depend entirely on visual evidence of the accused products, which is not included in the complaint.
2. Enforcement and Remedy: A core practical question centers on jurisdiction and enforcement against numerous, unidentified foreign sellers. The case appears structured to seek broad injunctive relief against third-party online marketplace platforms (Compl. Prayer for Relief ¶2), raising the question of whether this will be the primary remedy rather than damages collected from the sellers themselves.
3. Scope and Novelty: Should the case proceed, a key legal question will be the scope of the patented designs. The novelty and non-obviousness of the designs over prior art in the crowded field of hair care appliances will determine whether the patents command a broad or narrow scope of protection, which in turn will dictate how similar an accused product must be to infringe.