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” (Jurisdictions 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-00619, N.D. Ill., 01/23/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper because the 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 e-commerce store operators are selling and importing hair styling apparatus that infringes the ornamental designs protected by two of its U.S. design patents.
• Technical Context: The dispute is in the premium hair care appliance sector, where unique product design is a significant aspect of brand identity and market value.
• Key Procedural History: This action is an Amended Complaint filed against a group of unidentified defendants, listed on a "Schedule A," who allegedly operate online stores under various aliases. The complaint alleges this structure is a deliberate tactic by the defendants to conceal their identities. The asserted patents are both subject to terminal disclaimers.

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. (Compl. ¶9).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: Design patents protect the way an article looks, not how it works. The implicit problem addressed is the need to create a unique and non-obvious ornamental appearance for a hair styling appliance to distinguish it from other products in the market, with the complaint asserting that Dyson’s designs have become "iconic" and "instantly recognizable" (Compl. ¶5).
• The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific ornamental design for a hair styling apparatus. The design, as illustrated in the patent's figures, consists of the visual characteristics of the product's body and its constituent parts, such as the shape of the main housing and control interface (D’642 Patent, FIGS. 1-7). The patent explicitly states that the broken lines in the drawings illustrate portions of the apparatus that are not part of the claimed design (D’642 Patent, DESCRIPTION).
• Technical Importance: The complaint alleges that these distinctive designs are broadly recognized by consumers and are associated with the quality and innovation expected from Dyson products (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’642 Patent, CLAIM).
• The key ornamental features "as shown" in the solid lines of the patent drawings include:
  • An elongated, generally cylindrical main body.
  • A tapered end piece with fluted or ribbed texturing.
  • A specific arrangement of two circular buttons on the main body.
  • A distinct, textured band located at the opposite end of the body from the tapered tip, where a cord would exit.

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. (Compl. ¶8).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: As with the ’642 Patent, the goal is to protect a novel ornamental design for a hair care product to build brand identity and prevent visual imitation (Compl. ¶5, ¶8).
• The Patented Solution: The ’415 Patent claims a similar, but visually distinct, ornamental design for a hair styling apparatus. Key views, such as the top and bottom perspective views, illustrate the specific combination of shapes and surface treatments that constitute the claimed design (D’415 Patent, FIGS. 1-2, DESCRIPTION). Portions of the apparatus shown in broken lines are disclaimed and do not form part of the protected design (D’415 Patent, DESCRIPTION).
• Technical Importance: The value of this design is tied to the same brand recognition and association with quality that the complaint alleges for the Dyson brand generally (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" (’415 Patent, CLAIM).
• The key ornamental features "as shown" in the solid lines of the patent drawings include:
  • An elongated, generally cylindrical main body.
  • A perforated end cap.
  • A specific arrangement of two circular buttons on the main body.
  • A textured band near the base where a cord exits, featuring a distinct pattern.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused products are referred to collectively as the "Infringing Products," identified as an "unauthorized and unlicensed product, namely the hair styling and hair care apparatus shown in Exhibit 1" (Compl. ¶3). Exhibit 1 was not included in the filed document.

Functionality and Market Context

• The accused products are hair styling and hair care apparatuses offered for sale, sold, and imported by the defendants through various e-commerce stores on platforms including Amazon, eBay, AliExpress, and others (Compl. ¶3, ¶12). The complaint alleges these products are designed to mimic genuine Dyson products and are sold to "unknowing consumers" (Compl. ¶3, ¶15). The complaint further alleges that the defendants operate under multiple seller aliases to conceal their identities and that the infringing products for sale bear irregularities suggesting they originate from a common source (Compl. ¶11, ¶18).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not contain a detailed claim chart. Instead, it makes general allegations that the accused products infringe the patented "Dyson Designs." The core of the infringement allegation is that the ornamental appearance of the accused products is substantially the same as the designs claimed in the ’642 and ’415 patents.

The complaint alleges that defendants are "making, using, offering for sale, selling, and/or importing...Infringing Products that infringe directly and/or indirectly the ornamental designs claimed in the Dyson Designs" (Compl. ¶25). To support this, the complaint provides several figures from the asserted patents to illustrate the claimed designs. For example, the complaint includes a perspective view of the design claimed in the '642 patent, presented to illustrate the 'Dyson Designs' that are the subject of the suit (Compl. p. 4, FIG. 1). The infringement case will depend on a visual comparison between the accused products and the designs depicted in these figures, from the perspective of an ordinary observer.

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: The primary legal question in a design patent case is whether, in the eye of an ordinary observer, the accused design is substantially the same as the claimed design, such that the observer would be deceived into purchasing the accused product believing it is the patented one. A key issue will be whether the overall visual impression of the defendants' products is confusingly similar to the specific features shown in the solid lines of the patent drawings.
• Evidentiary Questions: The complaint refers to "the hair styling and hair care apparatus shown in Exhibit 1" as the infringing product, but this exhibit is not attached (Compl. ¶3). A foundational question for the court will be what evidence the plaintiff presents to establish the specific appearance of the products sold by each of the numerous, anonymous defendants, and to demonstrate that those appearances are substantially the same as the patented designs.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In design patent litigation, the claim is defined by the drawings, and claim construction of specific terms is not typically a central issue. The analysis focuses on the overall ornamental appearance as depicted in the patent figures.

• The "Term": The scope of the "ornamental design ... as shown and described."
• Context and Importance: The most critical aspect of interpreting a design patent claim is determining which features are part of the protected design and which are not. This distinction is fundamental to the infringement analysis, as only the claimed features are compared to the accused product.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Both the ’642 and ’415 patents contain express statements in their "DESCRIPTION" sections clarifying the scope of the claim. They state: "The broken lines shown in the drawings illustrate portions of a hair styling and hair care apparatus that form no part of the claimed design" (D’642 Patent, DESCRIPTION; D’415 Patent, DESCRIPTION). This language creates a clear and explicit boundary, limiting the protected design to only those elements depicted in solid lines. The infringement analysis must be confined to these specific features.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint includes a prayer for relief seeking to enjoin defendants from "aiding, abetting, contributing to, or otherwise assisting anyone" in making or selling the Infringing Products (Prayer for Relief, ¶1(b)). The body of the complaint also alleges that defendants infringe "directly and/or indirectly" (Compl. ¶25), though the factual allegations focus primarily on the defendants' own direct sales and importation activities.
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that the defendants' infringement was and is willful (Compl. ¶22). The basis for this allegation is that the defendants "knowingly and willfully" import and sell a product that infringes the Dyson Designs, without authorization from Dyson (Compl. ¶21).

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

1. A central procedural question will be one of enforcement and evidence: Given that the defendants are alleged to be numerous, anonymous online sellers operating under fictitious aliases from foreign jurisdictions (Compl. ¶10, ¶11, ¶18), can the plaintiff effectively link specific infringing products to each defendant and obtain meaningful relief that curtails the alleged widespread infringement?
2. The core substantive issue will be one of visual comparison under the ordinary observer test: Assuming the plaintiff produces the accused products for inspection, will an ordinary observer, familiar with the prior art, find the overall ornamental appearance of the accused products to be substantially the same as the specific features claimed in solid lines in the '642 and '415 patents?