DCT

1:25-cv-00823

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” (Jurisdiction(s) unknown, believed to be People's Republic of China or other foreign jurisdictions)
    • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Greer, Burns & Crain, Ltd.
  • Case Identification: 1:25-cv-00823, N.D. Ill., 01/24/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is based on allegations that Defendants operate 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 infringes two of its U.S. design patents.
  • Technical Context: The dispute concerns the ornamental design of high-end consumer hair care appliances, a market where distinctive product appearance is a significant driver of brand recognition and commercial value.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint is filed against a group of unidentified "John Doe" defendants, operating under various "Seller Aliases" on online marketplaces. This procedural posture suggests Dyson anticipates challenges in identifying and serving the responsible parties, a common issue in litigation against diffuse international e-commerce networks.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2017-05-30 Earliest Priority Date for D852,415 & D853,642 Patents
2019-06-25 U.S. Patent No. D852,415 Issues
2019-07-09 U.S. Patent No. D853,642 Issues
2025-01-24 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Design Patent No. D853,642 - “Hair styling and hair care apparatus” (Issued July 9, 2019)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Design patents do not solve functional problems; they protect the novel, non-obvious ornamental appearance of an article of manufacture. The goal is to create a unique and recognizable aesthetic for a product.
  • The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific ornamental design for a hair styling apparatus. The design features a wand-like cylindrical body with control buttons, a textured grip section near the base where a cord emerges, and a distinctive tapered, fluted, or finned head section. The overall impression is of a sleek, modern, handheld appliance (D’642 Patent, FIG. 1-7). The specific combination of these shapes and surface treatments constitutes the claimed design (Compl. ¶8).
  • Technical Importance: In the consumer electronics and personal care space, a distinctive product design serves as a key brand identifier and can be a significant commercial asset (Compl. ¶5).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • Design patents contain a single claim. The claim is for "the ornamental design for a hair styling and hair care apparatus, as shown and described" (D’642 Patent, Claim).
  • The scope of the claim is defined by the solid lines in the patent's drawings (FIG. 1-7). The design as a whole includes:
    • A main cylindrical body.
    • A tapered head with sculpted or finned surface features.
    • A textured section at the base of the body.
    • The specific arrangement of buttons on the body.

U.S. Design Patent No. D852,415 - “Hair styling and hair care apparatus” (Issued June 25, 2019)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: As with the ’642 Patent, this patent protects a specific ornamental appearance for a product to create a distinct aesthetic.
  • The Patented Solution: The ’415 Patent claims the ornamental design for what appears to be the handle or main body portion of a hair styling apparatus. Key features include a long, smooth cylindrical body, a set of circular buttons, a textured band near a tapered base, and a perforated cap at the opposite end (D’415 Patent, FIG. 1-7). The claim covers the visual appearance of this specific combination of elements (Compl. ¶8).
  • Technical Importance: This design provides a distinct visual identity for the handle portion of a hair care appliance, which contributes to the overall recognizable look of the complete product (Compl. ¶5).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The single claim is for "the ornamental design for a hair styling and hair care apparatus, as shown and described" (D’415 Patent, Claim).
  • The scope is defined by the solid lines in the patent drawings (FIG. 1-7) and encompasses the overall visual appearance of the article, including:
    • The proportions of the cylindrical body.
    • The placement and style of the control buttons.
    • The textured grip band.
    • The perforated end cap design.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused products are identified as "unauthorized and unlicensed...hair styling and hair care apparatus" (the "Infringing Products") (Compl. ¶3).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges these products are sold through various e-commerce stores operating under different "Seller Aliases" on platforms such as Amazon, eBay, TikTok, and Temu (Compl. ¶12). The stores are allegedly designed to appear as authorized retailers to consumers (Compl. ¶15). The complaint asserts that these products are sold and shipped to consumers in the United States, including Illinois (Compl. ¶14), and that the products originate from a common source, suggested to be in the People's Republic of China (Compl. ¶10, ¶18). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the Defendants are "making, using, offering for sale, selling, and/or importing" products that infringe the ornamental designs claimed in the ’642 and ’415 Patents (Compl. ¶25). The legal test for design patent infringement is the "ordinary observer" test, which asks whether an ordinary observer, familiar with the prior art, would be deceived into purchasing the accused product believing it to be the patented design.

The complaint does not provide a side-by-side comparison or a detailed claim chart mapping features of the accused products to the patented designs. The infringement theory rests on the general allegation that the "Infringing Products" embody the patented "Dyson Designs" (Compl. ¶3, ¶22). The visual evidence of the accused product is said to be in "Exhibit 1," which was not included with the filed complaint provided for analysis (Compl. ¶3).

Identified Points of Contention

  • Evidentiary Question: A threshold issue will be producing evidence of the accused products' designs. Without this evidence, which Dyson will need to acquire, no infringement analysis can proceed.
  • Scope Questions: Once evidence is available, the key question will be whether the overall ornamental appearance of the accused products is "substantially the same" as the designs shown in the ’642 and ’415 Patents. The court and jury will compare the accused products to the patent figures as a whole, not by a simple checklist of features.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of claim construction. In design patent cases, claim construction is typically not a central issue, as the claim's scope is defined by the drawings rather than textual limitations. The analysis is a visual comparison.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges that Defendants are "aiding, abetting, contributing to, or otherwise assisting anyone" in infringing, which is a claim for indirect infringement (Compl., Prayer for Relief ¶1(b)).

Willful Infringement

The complaint alleges that Defendants' infringement was "knowing[] and willful[]" (Compl. ¶21, ¶22). The basis for this allegation appears to be the general assertion that Defendants operate as part of a network of infringers who are aware of brand-owners' rights and take active measures to conceal their identities and evade enforcement (Compl. ¶11, ¶19).

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

  1. A Procedural and Jurisdictional Question: The primary hurdle will be identifying the defendants and establishing jurisdiction. The complaint is filed against anonymous entities allegedly operating from abroad. A key question is whether Dyson can successfully use legal discovery mechanisms to unmask the operators of the "Seller Aliases" and prove they have sufficient contacts with the forum.
  2. An Evidentiary and Substantive Question: Assuming defendants are identified, the core issue becomes one of visual comparison. The case will turn on whether the ornamental design of the accused products is substantially the same as the designs claimed in the ’642 and ’415 patents, such that it would deceive an ordinary observer. The outcome will depend entirely on the visual evidence of the accused products presented at trial.