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” (People's Republic of China or other foreign jurisdictions)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Greer, Burns & Crain, Ltd.
• Case Identification: 1:25-cv-00429, N.D. Ill., 01/16/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on Defendants’ alleged conduct of operating interactive e-commerce stores that target and make sales to consumers in the United States, including Illinois.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ unauthorized e-commerce sales of a hair styling apparatus infringe two of its U.S. design patents.
• Technical Context: The dispute is in the high-end personal care appliance market, where distinctive product design is a significant element of brand identity and value.
• Key Procedural History: The action is an Amended Complaint filed against a large number of unidentified defendants, listed on a sealed "Schedule A," who are alleged to be operators of online stores. This procedural posture is common in large-scale anti-counterfeiting enforcement efforts targeting transient online sellers.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. D853,642 - "Hair styling and hair care apparatus"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. D853,642, titled "Hair styling and hair care apparatus," issued July 9, 2019.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: Design patents protect the ornamental appearance of an article of manufacture rather than its utilitarian features. The complaint alleges that Plaintiff's designs are "distinctive," "iconic," and "instantly recognizable" by consumers, linking the product's appearance to quality and innovation (Compl. ¶5, ¶8).
• The Patented Solution: The patent protects the specific ornamental design for a hair styling apparatus as depicted in the patent's figures (D'642 Patent, FIGS. 1-7). The design consists of the visual characteristics of the product shown in solid lines, which include a main cylindrical body, a tapered end with grooved or fluted features, a section of textured grip near the cord entry, and a particular arrangement of two circular buttons on the body (D'642 Patent, FIG. 6).
• Technical Importance: The complaint alleges that the distinctive designs are broadly recognized by consumers and are associated with the quality and innovation expected from the Plaintiff's brand (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 essential elements of the claimed design are the visual features depicted in the patent's drawings, including:
  • The overall configuration and proportions of the apparatus.
  • A generally cylindrical main body.
  • A tapered styling end with external surface details.
  • A specific arrangement of controls on the main body.
  • A textured grip portion.
• The complaint alleges infringement of the "Dyson Designs," which encompasses this patent (Compl. ¶3, ¶25).

---

U.S. Patent No. D852,415 - "Hair styling and hair care apparatus"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. D852,415, titled "Hair styling and hair care apparatus," issued June 25, 2019.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: As with the '642 Patent, this design patent protects the ornamental appearance of a hair styling apparatus, which the Plaintiff asserts is a key aspect of its brand identity (Compl. ¶5, ¶8).
• The Patented Solution: This patent claims the ornamental design for what appears to be the handle portion of a hair styling apparatus ('415 Patent, FIGS. 1-7). Key features shown in solid lines include the cylindrical body, the specific placement of circular buttons, a textured grip section, and the transition to the power cord ('415 Patent, FIG. 1). The design appears closely related to that of the '642 patent but focuses on the handle without the tapered tip attachment.
• Technical Importance: This design contributes to the overall "iconic" and "recognizable" appearance of Plaintiff's hair care products, which the complaint links to consumer perception of quality (Compl. ¶5).

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" ('415 Patent, Claim).
• The core ornamental features comprising the design include:
  • The shape and proportions of the cylindrical handle.
  • A textured band located near the base of the handle.
  • The specific arrangement of two circular buttons on the handle's surface.
  • The visual appearance of the air intake at the bottom of the device.
• The complaint alleges this design is one of the "Dyson Designs" infringed by Defendants (Compl. ¶3, ¶25).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused products are identified as "the hair styling and hair care apparatus shown in Exhibit 1," which are collectively referred to as the "Infringing Products" (Compl. ¶3).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that Defendants are numerous e-commerce store operators selling unauthorized products on marketplace platforms such as Amazon, eBay, AliExpress, and Temu (Compl. ¶12). These stores are allegedly designed to appear as authorized retailers to "unknowing consumers" (Compl. ¶3, ¶15). The complaint asserts that these products are sold without license or authorization from Dyson and are not genuine Dyson products (Compl. ¶15).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not contain a formal claim chart. For design patents, infringement is determined by the "ordinary observer" test, which asks whether an ordinary observer, familiar with the prior art designs, would be deceived into purchasing the accused product believing it to be the patented one.

The infringement theory is based on the allegation that Defendants are making, using, and selling products that are visually identical to or substantially the same as the designs claimed in the ’642 and ’415 patents (Compl. ¶21, ¶25). The complaint provides tables showing figures from the asserted patents, including a perspective view from the D'853,642 patent (FIG. 1) and a perspective view from the D'852,415 patent (FIG. 1), to depict the designs at issue (Compl. ¶8, p. 4, 6). The core of the allegation is a direct appropriation of the patented ornamental designs.

Identified Points of Contention

• Visual Similarity: The central legal and factual question will be whether the overall ornamental appearance of the Defendants' products is "substantially the same" as the patented designs. The analysis will compare the accused products to the specific features shown in the solid lines of the patent drawings.
• Evidentiary Questions: The complaint does not include photographs of the actual "Infringing Products" offered for sale by the Defendants. A key question will be what evidence Plaintiff can produce to demonstrate the precise appearance of the products sold by each of the numerous, anonymous defendants.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In design patent litigation, the "claim" is understood to be the design itself as depicted in the drawings. Formal construction of written terms is uncommon. Instead, the analysis focuses on the overall visual impression of the design.

• The Term: The overall ornamental design for a "hair styling and hair care apparatus" as depicted in the patent figures.
• Context and Importance: The scope of protection is defined by the solid lines in the patent drawings. Practitioners may focus on the overall visual gestalt created by the combination of elements, as opposed to any single feature. Defendants in such cases typically argue that differences in proportion, surface ornamentation, or the shape of individual features are significant enough to create a different overall visual impression for an ordinary observer.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A court may find that the claim covers the overall aesthetic and configuration—a sleek, cylindrical wand with minimalist controls and a textured grip—and that minor deviations do not alter this fundamental impression.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specific features shown in solid lines in the '415 Patent and '642 Patent, such as the exact placement and size of the buttons, the pattern of the textured grip, and the precise taper of the styling end, define the metes and bounds of the claim. The broken lines in the drawings, such as the power cord, explicitly form no part of the claimed design and cannot be a basis for infringement ('415 Patent, Description).

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

• The complaint includes boilerplate requests for relief enjoining "aiding, abetting, contributing to, or otherwise assisting anyone" in infringing (Compl. Prayer for Relief ¶1(b)). However, the factual allegations in the body of the complaint focus on Defendants' own acts of making, using, selling, and importing, which primarily supports a claim for direct infringement (Compl. ¶25).

Willful Infringement

• Willfulness is explicitly alleged (Compl. ¶22). The complaint asserts that Defendants are "working to knowingly and willfully import, distribute, offer for sale, and sell Infringing Products" (Compl. ¶21). It further alleges that Defendants are part of a network of infringers who communicate about tactics for evading enforcement, which, if proven, may support a finding of willful conduct (Compl. ¶19).

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

• A primary challenge in this case appears to be procedural and evidentiary. Given the allegations of numerous anonymous defendants using concealment tactics on e-commerce platforms, a key question will be whether the Plaintiff can successfully identify the operators, obtain jurisdiction, and secure evidence of the specific products sold by each defendant.
• The core substantive issue will be one of visual identity. The case will turn on whether the accused products sold by Defendants are "substantially the same" in overall ornamental appearance as the designs claimed in the ’642 and ’415 patents, as judged from the perspective of an ordinary consumer of such products.