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” (People's Republic of China or other foreign jurisdictions)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Greer, Burns & Crain, Ltd.
• Case Identification: 1:25-cv-01833, N.D. Ill., 02/21/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged based on Defendants' operation of interactive e-commerce stores that target business activities and sales to consumers in the United States, including the state of Illinois.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ unauthorized hair styling and hair care apparatus, sold through various online marketplaces, infringe two U.S. design patents covering the ornamental appearance of Plaintiff's products.
• Technical Context: The lawsuit concerns the ornamental design of consumer electronic products in the personal hair care market, where unique and recognizable product aesthetics can be a significant component of brand identity.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint is structured as an action against a schedule of numerous, and largely anonymous, online sellers. This procedural approach is often used by brand owners to combat diffuse infringement by difficult-to-identify foreign entities operating through shifting online storefronts.

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. p. 4).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent does not describe a technical problem but instead serves to protect a specific, non-functional, ornamental product appearance from being copied. The complaint asserts that Dyson's products are known for their "unique and innovative design" which has become "instantly recognizable" to the public. (Compl. ¶5).
• The Patented Solution: The patent claims the ornamental design for a hair styling apparatus as depicted in its seven figures. The design's primary features include an elongated, generally cylindrical body, a distinctively tapered and fluted/grooved working end, a specific arrangement of two circular buttons on the main body, and a textured band near the base where a cord would attach. (D'642 Patent, FIG. 1, 3, 6). The claim protects the overall visual impression created by these elements in combination.
• Technical Importance: The complaint alleges that these proprietary designs are broadly recognized by consumers and have become associated with the "quality and innovation" of the Dyson brand. (Compl. ¶8).

Key Claims at a Glance

• Design patents contain a single claim. The asserted claim is for "The ornamental design for a hair styling and hair care apparatus, as shown and described." (D'642 Patent, col. 1:57-59).
• The scope of the claim is defined by the visual features shown in solid lines in the patent's drawings, which include:
  • A main body of elongated, cylindrical form.
  • A tapered working end with longitudinal surface indentations.
  • A particular side-by-side arrangement of two circular buttons on the main body.
  • A textured grip or band separating the main body from the corded end.

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. p. 6).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: As with the D'642 patent, this patent protects a specific ornamental product design, which the complaint alleges is part of a family of "Dyson Designs" that are "broadly recognized by consumers." (Compl. ¶8).
• The Patented Solution: The patent claims the ornamental design shown in its figures. This design is distinguished by a different combination of visual features, including an elongated cylindrical body, a distinct perforated end cap, a different configuration and placement of buttons on the body, and a textured band at the base. (D'415 Patent, FIG. 1, 4, 6).
• Technical Importance: The design is alleged to be one of the "distinctive patented designs" that consumers associate with Dyson's brand and reputation for quality. (Compl. ¶8).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The asserted claim is for "The ornamental design for a hair styling and hair care apparatus, as shown and described." (D'415 Patent, col. 1:57-59).
• The scope of the claim is defined by the visual features shown in solid lines in the patent's drawings, which include:
  • A main body of elongated, cylindrical form.
  • An end cap with a perforated or grille-like surface pattern.
  • A specific arrangement of buttons along the main body.
  • A textured band located at the corded end of the apparatus.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

• Product Identification: The complaint identifies the accused products as "the hair styling and hair care apparatus shown in Exhibit 1," referred to collectively as the "Infringing Products." (Compl. ¶3).
• Functionality and Market Context: The complaint alleges the Infringing Products are "unauthorized and unlicensed" items that copy Dyson's patented designs. (Compl. ¶3). These products are allegedly 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). The complaint asserts that these online stores are designed to appear as if they are authorized retailers, using content and images that make it difficult for consumers to distinguish them from legitimate channels. (Compl. ¶15). The complaint provides a perspective view of the D'642 patented design, which it alleges is infringed by the accused products. (Compl. p. 4, FIG. 1). Similarly, it provides a perspective view of the D'415 patented design, which is also alleged to be infringed. (Compl. p. 6, FIG. 1).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the accused "Infringing Products" are visually identical to or substantially the same as the patented designs, thereby infringing the '642 and '415 patents.

D'642 Patent Infringement Allegations

D'415 Patent Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Visual Comparison: The central issue for design patent infringement is the "ordinary observer" test—whether an ordinary observer, familiar with the prior art, would be deceived into purchasing the accused device believing it to be the patented one. The case will depend on a side-by-side visual comparison between the patented designs and the accused products.
  • Scope of Protection: A potential point of contention could be the scope of the claimed designs. Defendants, should they appear, may argue that any differences in proportion, surface finish, or other visual details between their products and the patent figures are sufficient to place them outside the scope of the claims. The broken lines in the patent figures, which represent unclaimed subject matter, will be critical in defining the boundaries of the protected design. (D'415 Patent, col. 1:71-74).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In design patent cases, the "claim" is the visual design itself as depicted in the drawings, and formal claim construction of terms is less common than in utility patent cases. The primary interpretive task is to determine the scope of the design as a whole.

• The "Term": The overall ornamental design "as shown and described."
• Context and Importance: The entire infringement analysis rests on the visual scope of the two patented designs. The court's interpretation will focus on the overall visual impression created by the combination of features shown in solid lines, while excluding those shown in broken lines (e.g., the power cord). Practitioners may focus on this holistic interpretation because even small differences in an accused product can be argued to alter the overall visual impression and avoid infringement.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent claims the "ornamental design for a hair styling and hair care apparatus," not a specific component. (D'642 Patent, col. 1:57-59). Plaintiff may argue that the claim covers any apparatus with the same overall visual gestalt, and that minor variations are irrelevant if the ordinary observer would still be deceived.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The description explicitly states the claim is for the design "as shown and described." (D'642 Patent, col. 1:58-59). A defendant could argue this limits the scope to the exact proportions and features depicted. The explicit disclaimer of elements in broken lines (e.g., "The broken lines... form no part of the claimed design") further defines and limits the scope to only what is shown in solid lines. (D'642 Patent, DESCRIPTION).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes a passing reference to products that "indirectly" infringe and includes a request to enjoin those who "aid" or "abet" infringement. (Compl. ¶25; Prayer for Relief ¶1(b)). However, the factual allegations focus on Defendants' own acts of making, using, selling, and importing, which constitute direct infringement. (Compl. ¶3, ¶25).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants' infringement was "willful." (Compl. ¶22). The factual basis for this allegation includes the assertion that Defendants operate as part of an interrelated network, use tactics to conceal their identities, and are "working to knowingly and willfully import, distribute, offer for sale, and sell Infringing Products." (Compl. ¶17-19, ¶21).

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

• A primary issue is procedural and logistical: given that the Defendants are alleged to be numerous, anonymous foreign entities operating through ephemeral online aliases, can the Plaintiff effectively establish personal jurisdiction, obtain meaningful discovery, and ultimately enforce a judgment against them?
• The core substantive issue is one of visual comparison: under the "ordinary observer" test, does the overall ornamental design of the accused products create a visual impression so similar to the D'642 and D'415 patented designs that a purchaser would be deceived? The outcome will depend on a direct comparison of the accused products with the patent figures.
• A key damages question will be one of accounting: assuming liability is established, can the Plaintiff discover and prove the Defendants' total profits from the sale of the infringing products, as provided for design patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 289, given the Defendants' alleged use of offshore accounts and tactics to hide sales data?