DCT

1:25-cv-00851

Dyson Technology Ltd v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:25-cv-00851, N.D. Ill., 01/24/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on Defendants’ alleged operation of interactive e-commerce stores that target and sell products to consumers throughout the United States, including residents of Illinois.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that numerous unnamed e-commerce operators are infringing a U.S. design patent by manufacturing, importing, and selling unauthorized battery packs that copy the patented ornamental design.
  • Technical Context: The dispute is in the consumer electronics accessory market, where the ornamental design of a component like a battery pack can be a significant driver of brand recognition and consumer trust.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff's products embodying the patented design are marked in compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 287(a), which is a prerequisite for recovering damages for infringement occurring before the lawsuit was filed. The case is filed against a schedule of unidentified defendants, a common procedure in anti-counterfeiting litigation involving online sellers.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2013-02-18 ’299 Patent Priority Date
2014-08-05 ’299 Patent Issue Date
2025-01-24 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. D710,299 - "BATTERY PACK"

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Design patents protect ornamental appearance, not functional utility. The complaint suggests that Dyson’s product designs have become "iconic" and "instantly recognizable" to the public, creating a commercial need to protect this unique visual identity from imitation (Compl. ¶5, 8).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific ornamental design for a battery pack, as shown in its seven figures (’299 Patent, Claim). The design consists of the visual shape, configuration, and surface ornamentation of the battery pack, as depicted in solid lines in the drawings, such as the two-part housing and the distinctive vertical connecting structure (’299 Patent, FIG. 1-7). The patent explicitly states that elements shown in broken lines are for illustrative purposes only and "form no part of the claimed design" (’299 Patent, Description).
  • Technical Importance: The complaint asserts that distinctive designs are associated with the "quality and innovation that the public has come to expect from Dyson Products," making the patented design a key element of the product's market identity (Compl. ¶8).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts the patent’s single claim (Compl. ¶25).
  • The claim is for "the ornamental design for a battery pack, as shown and described" (’299 Patent, Claim). In design patent law, the "elements" are the visual features depicted in the patent’s drawings.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are "the battery pack shown in Exhibit 1," referred to as the "Infringing Products" (Compl. ¶3). These are described as unauthorized and unlicensed products sold by the defendants through online stores (Compl. ¶3, 12).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that Defendants operate e-commerce stores on platforms including Amazon, eBay, AliExpress, and Temu, which target U.S. consumers (Compl. ¶12). These stores are allegedly designed with content and images intended to make them difficult for consumers to distinguish from authorized Dyson retailers (Compl. ¶15). A perspective view of the patented design is presented as FIG. 1 in the complaint, which represents the design allegedly copied by the Infringing Products (Compl. p. 4).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide a claim chart, which is typical for design patent cases. The infringement test is whether an "ordinary observer," familiar with the prior art designs, would be deceived into purchasing the accused product believing it to be the patented design.

The complaint alleges that Defendants are making, using, and selling "Infringing Products that infringe directly and/or indirectly the ornamental design claimed in the Dyson Design" (Compl. ¶25). The complaint identifies the "Dyson Design" with reference to figures from the ’299 Patent, including a perspective view labeled FIG. 1 (Compl. ¶8, p. 4). This image depicts a battery pack with a horizontally oriented base and a vertically oriented connecting element with distinct contours and features (Compl. p. 4, FIG. 1). The core of the infringement allegation is that the accused battery packs are visually indistinguishable from the design shown in the patent's figures.

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: The primary question is whether the overall visual appearance of the accused products is substantially the same as the claimed design. The analysis must focus only on the ornamental features shown in solid lines in the ’299 patent, as the patent disclaims the matter shown in broken lines (’299 Patent, Description).
  • Technical Questions: A factual question for the court will be the side-by-side comparison of an actual accused product (once obtained through discovery or a test purchase) with the drawings of the ’299 Patent. The degree of visual similarity will be the central issue.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In design patent litigation, claim construction involves describing the claimed design in words to guide the infringement analysis, rather than defining specific text-based terms.

  • The Term: "The ornamental design for a battery pack."
  • Context and Importance: The construction of this "term" is effectively the determination of the scope of the design patent's protection. Practitioners may focus on this issue because the outcome of the case hinges on which specific visual features are considered part of the protected design and which are not.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim is for the overall ornamental design as shown, which could support an argument that the design's "total concept" or overall visual impression is protected, not just a list of individual features.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s description explicitly states that "The broken lines shown in the drawings are included for the purpose of illustrating environmental structure and form no part of the claimed design" (’299 Patent, Description). This provides a clear basis for arguing that the scope of protection is limited to the exact features depicted in solid lines and does not extend to the overall shape of any attached tool or unclaimed portions of the battery pack.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants "knowingly and willfully" offer for sale and import products that infringe "directly and/or indirectly" the Dyson Design (Compl. ¶21). The prayer for relief also seeks to enjoin Defendants from "aiding, abetting, contributing to, or otherwise assisting anyone" in infringing, which implicates theories of indirect infringement (Compl. p. 13, ¶1(b)).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants' infringement was willful (Compl. ¶22). This allegation is supported by claims that Defendants use sophisticated tactics to conceal their identities, such as operating under multiple aliases and using offshore accounts, which may suggest knowledge of wrongdoing (Compl. ¶17, 20).

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

  • A central issue will be one of visual comparison: applying the "ordinary observer" test, is the ornamental design of the accused battery packs substantially the same as the design claimed in the ’299 patent, considering the claimed design as a whole and filtering out any disclaimed or purely functional aspects?
  • A key procedural question will be one of enforcement and jurisdiction: given that the defendants are alleged to be unidentified foreign entities operating through ephemeral online storefronts, can the Plaintiff effectively identify, serve, and secure an enforceable judgment against them and their assets?
  • A third question will relate to remedies: if infringement is found, can Dyson prove the defendants’ total profits from the infringing sales to recover them under 35 U.S.C. § 289, given the defendants’ alleged efforts to conceal their operations and move funds offshore?