Dyson Technology Ltd v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Dyson Technology Limited (United Kingdom)
  • Defendant: GADGET_GIFT and the Individuals and Entities Operating GADGET_GIFT (Jurisdiction Undetermined, Allegedly Foreign)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Greer, Burns & Crain, Ltd.
• Case Identification: 1:25-cv-09704, N.D. Ill., 08/18/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is based on allegations that Defendants target business activities toward U.S. consumers, including those in Illinois, through interactive e-commerce stores.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ sale of unauthorized battery packs on various e-commerce platforms infringes a U.S. design patent covering the ornamental appearance of a battery pack.
• Technical Context: The dispute involves the ornamental design of battery packs for consumer electronics, a field where distinctive product aesthetics can be a significant brand identifier and market differentiator.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendants operate under multiple seller aliases and use fraudulent registration information to conceal their identities and evade enforcement, and that they maintain offshore accounts to shield assets from potential judgments. No prior litigation or patent office proceedings involving the patent-in-suit are mentioned.

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: As a design patent, the patent does not address a technical or functional problem. Instead, it protects a specific, non-functional, ornamental design for an article of manufacture, which the complaint alleges is associated with Plaintiff's brand, quality, and innovation (Compl. ¶5, ¶8).
• The Patented Solution: The patent discloses and claims a particular ornamental design for a battery pack. The visual appearance is characterized by the solid lines in the patent's figures, which depict a primary rectangular body with rounded ends combined with a distinct, vertically-oriented connector structure rising from its top surface, featuring specific contours and surface details (’299 Patent, Figs. 1-7; "DESCRIPTION"). The broken lines in the figures illustrate environmental structure and do not form part of the claimed design (’299 Patent, "DESCRIPTION").
• Technical Importance: The complaint posits that distinctive product designs, such as the one patented, become broadly recognized by consumers and are associated with the quality and innovation of the Dyson brand (Compl. ¶8).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The patent contains a single claim for "the ornamental design for a battery pack, as shown and described" (’299 Patent, "CLAIM").
• The scope of this claim is defined by the visual appearance of the battery pack as depicted in the seven figures of the patent. The key visual features comprising the design include:
  • A horizontally elongated, generally rectangular base with rounded ends.
  • A raised structure protruding vertically from the top surface of the base.
  • The specific combination of proportions, contours, and surface ornamentation of these elements as illustrated in the patent drawings.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused products are battery packs sold by Defendants through various e-commerce stores, referred to in the complaint as the "Infringing Products" (Compl. ¶3).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that Defendants operate e-commerce stores under various "Seller Aliases" on platforms such as Amazon, eBay, Temu, and Walmart (Compl. ¶12). These stores are allegedly designed to appear as authorized retailers to consumers and offer for sale unauthorized products that embody Dyson's patented design (Compl. ¶3, ¶15). The complaint asserts that none of the Defendants are licensed or authorized to use the patented design (Compl. ¶15). The complaint includes a table with an image from the asserted patent, labeled FIG. 1, to represent the "Dyson Design" that is allegedly infringed (Compl. p. 4).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the accused "Infringing Products" are the "same...product that infringes directly and/or indirectly the Dyson Design" (Compl. ¶20). For a design patent, infringement is determined by the "ordinary observer" test, which asks whether an ordinary observer, familiar with the prior art, would be deceived into believing the accused design is the same as the patented design.

D710,299 Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Visual Comparison: The central issue will be a direct visual comparison between the accused products and the design claimed in the ’299 Patent. The complaint alleges the products are the "same" (Compl. ¶3, ¶20), but does not provide images of the accused products for comparison, referencing a non-included "Exhibit 1." The dispositive question will be whether an ordinary observer would find the designs substantially the same.
  • Scope Questions: A potential issue is whether any differences between the patented design and the accused products are minor enough that they do not alter the overall visual impression, or significant enough to avoid infringement.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

Claim construction for a design patent focuses on the overall visual appearance of the design as shown in the patent's drawings, rather than on interpreting written terms. The claim is understood to be for the design as a whole.

• The Term: The scope of the claimed "ornamental design."
• Context and Importance: The court's interpretation of the design's overall visual impression and its specific ornamental features will define the scope of protection. This determination is critical for the infringement analysis, as it sets the standard against which the accused products will be compared. Practitioners may focus on distinguishing protected ornamental features from any potentially functional elements of the battery pack's shape.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim covers the overall visual impression created by the combination of all features shown in solid lines in the patent figures. Arguments for broader scope might emphasize the overall unique shape and configuration of the design as a whole, rather than focusing on minute surface details.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specific contours, proportions, and surface details shown in the figures (’299 Patent, Figs. 1-7) define the precise design being claimed. Furthermore, the use of broken lines to show environmental structure expressly limits the scope of the claim, as those elements are not part of the protected design (’299 Patent, "DESCRIPTION").

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint includes a general allegation of direct and/or indirect infringement (Compl. ¶24) and the prayer for relief seeks to enjoin "aiding, abetting, [or] contributing to" infringement (Prayer for Relief ¶1.b). However, the specific factual allegations focus on Defendants' own acts of making, using, selling, and importing, which constitute direct infringement.
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants' infringement was willful (Compl. ¶21). The basis for this allegation appears to be that Defendants "knowingly and willfully offered for sale, sold, and/or imported" products that infringe the "Dyson Design," suggesting knowledge based on the fame of Dyson's products and designs (Compl. ¶5, ¶8, ¶20).

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

• A core issue will be one of visual identity: Is the ornamental design of the accused battery packs substantially the same as the design claimed in the '299 patent in the eye of an ordinary observer? The outcome will depend on a visual comparison between the accused products (not pictured in the complaint) and the patent's figures.
• A key practical challenge will be one of enforcement: Can the Plaintiff successfully identify, serve, and secure a meaningful remedy against the defendants, who are alleged to be operating anonymously through multiple aliases from foreign jurisdictions with the intent to evade legal accountability?