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, Allegedly China or other foreign jurisdictions)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Greer, Burns & Crain, Ltd.
• Case Identification: 1:25-cv-00689, N.D. Ill., 01/24/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendants' e-commerce stores directly targeting business activities and sales toward consumers in the United States, including Illinois.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that unidentified e-commerce operators are selling unauthorized battery packs that infringe its patented ornamental design.
• Technical Context: The dispute concerns the proprietary aesthetic design of accessory components, specifically battery packs, for high-end consumer electronics like cordless vacuums.
• Key Procedural History: This is an Amended Complaint filed against a "Schedule A" list of unidentified defendants, a procedural approach common in cases targeting large numbers of online sellers of allegedly counterfeit or infringing goods.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Design Patent No. D710,299 - "Battery Pack"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D710,299, "Battery Pack," issued August 5, 2014.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: In the market for consumer electronics, establishing a unique and recognizable product appearance is a key differentiator. The patent does not describe a technical problem but implicitly addresses the commercial need for a distinctive ornamental design for a battery pack, separating it visually from generic or third-party alternatives (D’299 Patent, Title).
• The Patented Solution: The patent protects the specific visual appearance of a battery pack, not its function. The design is defined by the combination of its overall shape, contours, and surface ornamentation as depicted in the patent's seven figures (D’299 Patent, Claim, Figs. 1-7). Key features include a lower, elongated main body with rounded ends and an upper, centrally-located, multi-faceted structure presumably for mounting. The patent explicitly disclaims the subject matter shown in broken lines, indicating it is for environmental context only and not part of the protected design (D’299 Patent, Description).
• Technical Importance: The design provides a distinct visual identity for a component that is integral to the function and branding of the larger product (e.g., a cordless vacuum), contributing to brand recognition and commercial appeal (Compl. ¶5, 8).

Key Claims at a Glance

• Design patents contain a single claim. The asserted claim is: "The ornamental design for a battery pack, as shown and described."
• The scope of this claim is defined by the visual representations in Figures 1 through 7 of the patent, which include:
  • A perspective view (Fig. 1)
  • Front and rear views (Figs. 2, 3)
  • Left and right side views (Figs. 4, 5)
  • Top and bottom views (Figs. 6, 7)

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused products are unauthorized and unlicensed battery packs, referred to as the "Infringing Products" (Compl. ¶3).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges these are replacement battery packs sold through numerous e-commerce storefronts on platforms including Amazon, eBay, AliExpress, and others (Compl. ¶12). It is alleged that these products are designed to appear like genuine Dyson products to trade on Dyson's reputation and goodwill (Compl. ¶3). The complaint alleges Defendants operate under multiple "Seller Aliases" to conceal their identities and sell these products to consumers in the U.S., including Illinois (Compl. ¶2, 14). A visual depiction of an exemplary accused product is referenced as "Exhibit 1" in the complaint, though this exhibit was not attached to the filed pleading itself (Compl. ¶3).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not contain a formal claim chart. The infringement analysis for a design patent turns on 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 following table summarizes the infringement theory based on the complaint's allegations and the patent's figures. A key piece of visual evidence from the complaint is Figure 1, which provides an overall perspective view of the patented design (Compl. p. 4).

D710,299 Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Visual Similarity: The central question will be whether the accused products are "substantially the same" in overall visual appearance as the D’299 patent design from the perspective of an ordinary observer. Minor differences may not be enough to avoid infringement if the overall impression is the same.
  • Evidentiary Question: The infringement analysis will depend entirely on a visual comparison between the patent figures and the actual accused products. The strength of Dyson's case will hinge on the evidence presented (such as the product from Exhibit 1) demonstrating this visual similarity.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In design patent litigation, the claim is understood to be the design itself as depicted in the drawings, and traditional claim construction of words is rare. The primary interpretive issue is determining the overall scope of the visual design that is protected.

• The Term: The "ornamental design for a battery pack."
• Context and Importance: The scope of the design as a whole, rather than any single word, is the central issue. The court's analysis will focus on the overall visual impression created by the patented design, and practitioners may focus on separating ornamental features from any that are purely functional, as functional aspects are not protected by a design patent.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim is for the design "as shown and described," which encompasses the overall visual gestalt created by all figures. An argument for broader scope would focus on the unique overall configuration and impression, suggesting that any product with a similar general shape and arrangement of elements infringes.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The precise lines, curves, and proportions shown in Figures 1-7 define the design's specific scope (D’299 Patent, Figs. 1-7). The patent also explicitly uses broken lines to illustrate "environmental structure" that is not part of the claimed design, thereby limiting the scope to only the elements shown in solid lines (D’299 Patent, Description). This disclaimer provides a clear boundary for what is not protected.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants' acts of "making, using, offering for sale, selling, and/or importing" the Infringing Products constitute direct and/or indirect infringement (Compl. ¶25). The prayer for relief also seeks to enjoin Defendants from "aiding, abetting, contributing to, or otherwise assisting anyone" in infringing (Prayer ¶1.b).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants' infringement was and is willful (Compl. ¶22). This allegation is based on the assertion that Defendants are knowingly and intentionally selling products that copy the "Dyson Design" to trade upon Dyson's reputation, and are operating under fictitious aliases to evade detection and enforcement (Compl. ¶3, 18-21).

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

1. A primary question will be one of visual comparison: Assuming the accused products are produced, does their overall ornamental appearance create a visual impression that is "substantially the same" as the D’299 patent in the eyes of an ordinary observer, or are there sufficient visual differences to avoid infringement?
2. A critical procedural question will be one of joinder and liability: Can Dyson successfully demonstrate a "logical relationship" between the disparate online sellers named in Schedule A, based on shared operational tactics and product sourcing, to justify treating them as a single group of related defendants for the purposes of jurisdiction and enforcement?
3. An underlying issue will be the scope of the design: The case may require determining which specific features of the battery pack design are ornamental and protected, versus any features that might be argued to be dictated by the functional requirements of interfacing with a Dyson vacuum, as functional elements are not protectable by a design patent.