DCT

1:25-cv-00810

Dyson Technology Ltd v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations

Log In

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-00810, N.D. Ill., 01/23/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged based on Defendants’ operation of interactive e-commerce stores that target and make sales to consumers in Illinois.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ unauthorized hair styling and hair care apparatus infringe two of its U.S. design patents.
  • Technical Context: The lawsuit concerns the premium hair care appliance market, where unique and recognizable ornamental product designs serve as a significant source of brand identity and commercial value.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint is structured as an action against numerous, initially anonymous "John Doe" defendants, a common procedural posture in cases targeting alleged online counterfeiters. The patents-in-suit are noted on their face as being subject to a terminal disclaimer.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2017-05-30 Earliest Priority Date for '642 and '415 Patents
2019-06-25 '415 Patent Issue Date
2019-07-09 '642 Patent Issue Date
2025-01-23 Complaint Filing Date

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. Design Patent No. D853,642, "Hair styling and hair care apparatus," issued July 9, 2019. (Compl. ¶9; Compl. p. 4).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Design patents do not articulate a technical problem and solution; rather, they protect the novel, non-functional, ornamental appearance of an article of manufacture. The context of the complaint suggests the design aims to create a distinctive and iconic appearance for a hair styling product in a competitive market (Compl. ¶¶ 5, 8).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific ornamental design for a hair styling apparatus, characterized by the visual features shown in solid lines in its figures ('642 Patent, Description). Key aspects of the design include an elongated cylindrical body, a specific arrangement of circular buttons, a tapered grip section with a textured surface where the cord emerges, and a prominent, removable conical attachment head featuring sculpted fluting ('642 Patent, FIGS. 1, 6).
  • Technical Importance: The complaint alleges that such distinctive patented designs are broadly recognized by consumers and are associated with the quality and innovation of Dyson's products (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" ('642 Patent, Claim).
  • The scope of this claim is defined by the visual appearance of the article as a whole, depicted in solid lines in the patent's drawings. The core ornamental features include:
    • The overall proportions and shape of the elongated cylindrical body.
    • The placement and appearance of the controls on the body.
    • The textured, tapered grip at the base of the apparatus.
    • The shape and surface ornamentation of the conical attachment.

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

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D852,415, "Hair styling and hair care apparatus," issued June 25, 2019. (Compl. ¶9; Compl. p. 6).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: As with the '642 Patent, this design patent protects the ornamental appearance of a hair styling apparatus, intended to create a unique and recognizable product identity (Compl. ¶¶ 5, 8).
  • The Patented Solution: The '415 Patent claims an ornamental design for a similar hair styling apparatus but with a distinct configuration. While sharing the elongated cylindrical body and textured grip elements with the '642 Patent, this design is distinguished by its end piece. Instead of a conical attachment, this design features a flat end cap with a perforated surface pattern ('415 Patent, FIGS. 1, 4). The broken lines in the figures, such as for the power cord, indicate those elements are not part of the claimed design ('415 Patent, Description).
  • Technical Importance: This design represents another aspect of the product's aesthetic, which the complaint alleges is instantly recognizable to the purchasing public (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 claimed design's key visual features include:
    • The elongated cylindrical main body.
    • A specific arrangement of controls.
    • The textured, tapered grip section.
    • A flat end cap with a distinct perforated surface pattern.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are "unauthorized and unlicensed" hair styling and hair care apparatus, collectively referred to as the "Infringing Products" (Compl. ¶3).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that the Infringing Products are sold by the Defendants through "fully interactive, e-commerce stores" operating under various seller aliases on platforms such as Amazon, eBay, AliExpress, and Temu (Compl. ¶12). These stores are allegedly designed to appear as authorized retailers to deceive consumers (Compl. ¶15). The complaint alleges that the Infringing Products embody the patented "Dyson Designs" (Compl. ¶8). The complaint states that an image of an infringing product is shown in Exhibit 1; however, that exhibit was not attached to the publicly filed document, precluding a direct visual comparison (Compl. ¶3). For example, Figure 1 of the '642 patent is presented in the complaint as a representation of one of the "Dyson Designs" that the accused products allegedly infringe (Compl. p. 4, FIG. 1). Similarly, Figure 1 of the '415 patent is shown as another of the asserted designs (Compl. p. 6, FIG. 1).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide claim charts or a side-by-side visual comparison between the patented designs and the accused products. The infringement theory is based on the allegation that the accused products are copies that are visually indistinguishable from the designs protected by the patents-in-suit.

The legal test for design patent infringement is whether an "ordinary observer," giving such attention as a purchaser usually gives, would be deceived into purchasing the accused product believing it to be the patented design. The analysis turns on the similarity of the designs as a whole, not a comparison of discrete features. The complaint alleges that Defendants make, use, offer for sale, sell, and/or import products that "infringe directly and/or indirectly the ornamental designs claimed in the Dyson Designs" (Compl. ¶25).

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Factual Question: The central issue will be factual: is the overall visual appearance of the Defendants' products substantially the same as the overall visual appearance of the designs claimed in the ’642 and ’415 patents? Answering this will require obtaining samples or clear photographs of the accused products.
    • Scope Question: A potential question is whether any differences between the accused products and the patented designs are significant enough to be apparent to an ordinary observer, thereby avoiding a finding of infringement. Without images of the accused products, the materiality of any potential differences cannot be assessed.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In design patent litigation, the "claim" is understood to be the design as depicted in the patent's drawings. Formal claim construction of written terms is rare. The central analysis is a visual comparison rather than a parsing of text.

Practitioners may focus on the scope of the design as a whole, as defined by the solid lines in the drawings of the ’642 and ’415 patents. The portions shown in broken lines, such as the power cord, are for illustrative purposes only and do not form part of the claimed design ('642 Patent, Description; '415 Patent, Description). The legal interpretation will therefore focus on the overall visual impression created by the features shown in solid lines.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes a conclusory allegation of indirect infringement (Compl. ¶25) and aiding and abetting (Prayer ¶1.b). However, the pleading does not set forth specific facts to support the knowledge and intent elements required for claims of induced or contributory infringement, focusing instead on the Defendants' own acts of direct infringement.
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants' infringement was and is willful (Compl. ¶22). This allegation is supported by claims that Defendants act knowingly and without license from Dyson (Compl. ¶21) and engage in tactics to conceal their identities and operations, such as using multiple fictitious aliases and participating in online forums discussing evasion of enforcement, which may suggest knowledge of wrongdoing (Compl. ¶¶ 11, 18, 19).

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

  1. An Evidentiary Question of Visual Similarity: The case will fundamentally turn on a visual comparison. Once the accused products are identified, the core question for the court will be whether an ordinary observer would find their overall ornamental design to be substantially the same as the designs claimed in the ’642 and ’415 patents.
  2. A Procedural Question of Identification and Jurisdiction: A critical initial phase will involve the procedural challenge of piercing the anonymity of the "John Doe" defendants. The success of the case hinges on Plaintiff's ability to identify the operators of the online storefronts, establish personal jurisdiction, and compel discovery from entities alleged to be foreign and employing evasive tactics.
  3. A Remedial Question of Enforcement: Should infringement be found, a key issue will be the scope and effectiveness of the remedy. This includes the court's ability to issue a broad injunction against a network of shifting online storefronts and Dyson's ability to recover damages or profits from operators who allegedly use offshore financial accounts to shield assets (Compl. ¶20).