DCT
1:25-cv-10060
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” (Jurisdictions Unknown, Alleged to be People's Republic of China or other foreign jurisdictions)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Greer, Burns & Crain, Ltd.
- Case Identification: 1:25-cv-10060, N.D. Ill., 08/22/2025
- Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted on the basis that Defendants target business activities toward consumers in the United States and Illinois through interactive e-commerce stores, offer shipping to Illinois, and accept payment in U.S. dollars.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that numerous unnamed e-commerce operators are selling and importing battery packs that infringe its design patent.
- Technical Context: The dispute concerns the ornamental design of a battery pack, a key accessory for popular cordless vacuum cleaners and other consumer electronics.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation or administrative proceedings related to the patent-in-suit. The case is filed against a schedule of unidentified defendants, a common strategy used to combat diffuse online infringement from sellers who allegedly use aliases to conceal their identities.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2013-02-18 | ’299 Patent - Earliest Priority Date |
| 2014-08-05 | ’299 Patent - Issue Date |
| 2025-08-22 | Complaint Filing Date |
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: The patent does not describe a technical problem, as is typical for a design patent. Its purpose is to protect the unique, non-functional ornamental appearance of a battery pack (Compl. ¶8).
- The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific ornamental design for a battery pack as depicted in its seven figures ('299 Patent, Claim; DESCRIPTION). The design consists of a main rectangular body with rounded edges, from which a distinct, vertically-oriented connecting structure protrudes ('299 Patent, FIG. 1). This upright structure has a complex, somewhat angled profile with various surface details, while the main body features horizontal grooves along its sides ('299 Patent, FIG. 4, 5). The overall visual impression is a combination of a solid, stable base and a more intricate, mechanical-looking connector element.
- Technical Importance: The complaint alleges that Dyson products are known for their "distinctive patented designs," which are "broadly recognized by consumers" and associated with quality and innovation (Compl. ¶8).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The patent asserts a single claim: "The ornamental design for a battery pack, as shown and described." ('299 Patent, Claim). This claim protects the overall visual appearance of the article shown in solid lines in the patent's drawings.
- The complaint alleges infringement of this single design claim (Compl. ¶25).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused products are "unauthorized and unlicensed" battery packs (the "Infringing Products") sold by the unidentified Defendants through various e-commerce stores (Compl. ¶3).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges that Defendants operate e-commerce stores on platforms like Amazon, eBay, Temu, and Walmart, using "Seller Aliases" to target consumers in the United States, including Illinois (Compl. ¶12, ¶14).
- These stores are allegedly designed to appear as authorized retailers to "unknowing consumers," making it difficult to distinguish them from legitimate channels (Compl. ¶15). The complaint asserts these activities are part of a global trade in counterfeit goods originating primarily from China (Compl. ¶12). A visual of the patented design, taken from the patent's Figure 1, is presented as representative of the "Dyson Design" that the Infringing Products are alleged to embody (Compl. p. 4).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint alleges that the "Infringing Products" are visually identical or substantially similar to the design claimed in the ’299 Patent. 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 purchasing the accused product believing it to be the patented design. The complaint provides figures from the patent itself to illustrate the claimed design.
D710,299 Infringement Allegations
| Ornamental Feature of Claimed Design | Alleged Infringing Appearance | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| The overall visual appearance of the battery pack, as shown in the patent figures. | Defendants are accused of making, using, selling, or importing products that "infringe directly and/or indirectly the ornamental design claimed in the Dyson Design." | ¶25 | Figs. 1-7 |
| The perspective view showing a combination of a rectangular base with a protruding upright connector. | The complaint uses this specific view to define the "Dyson Design" allegedly infringed by Defendants' products. | p. 4 | FIG. 1 |
| The specific side profile, including horizontal grooves on the base and the angled shape of the connector. | The complaint shows these side views as part of the overall protected design. | p. 6 | Figs. 4 & 5 |
| The top-down view showing the shape of the connector interface and surrounding surfaces. | The complaint includes this top view as part of the overall protected design. | p. 7 | FIG. 6 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central question will be whether the accused products, once identified, are "substantially the same" as the patented design. This involves comparing the accused products to the patent's drawings from the perspective of an ordinary observer.
- Technical Questions: Since this is a design patent case, the key question is not technical functionality but visual identity. The court will need to determine whether any differences between the claimed design and the accused products are minor enough that an ordinary observer would still be confused. Another question is whether any aspects of the claimed design are dictated primarily by function, which would render those aspects unprotectable. The complaint does not provide enough detail to analyze this issue.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
In a design patent case, the "claim" is the set of drawings, so there are no textual terms to construe in the traditional sense. Instead, analysis focuses on the scope of the claimed design as defined by the drawings.
- The Term: The scope of "the ornamental design for a battery pack, as shown and described."
- Context and Importance: The scope of protection is critical. The analysis hinges on what visual elements are included in the claimed design and which are excluded. Practitioners may focus on the distinction between protectable ornamental features and unprotectable functional aspects or unclaimed environmental structure.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim covers the overall visual impression of the design shown in solid lines. An argument for broader scope would contend that the design's novelty lies in its overall configuration and combination of shapes, and that minor variations in the accused product do not alter this overall impression.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's drawings include broken lines, which "illustrate environmental structure and form no part of the claimed design" ('299 Patent, DESCRIPTION). This explicitly limits the scope of the claim to only the elements shown in solid lines. Any infringement analysis must disregard the features shown in broken lines, potentially narrowing the scope of protection compared to a design where all features are claimed.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The prayer for relief seeks to enjoin "aiding, abetting, contributing to, or otherwise assisting anyone" in infringing (Compl. Prayer for Relief ¶1(b)), but the body of the complaint does not plead specific facts to support a claim for indirect infringement against any specific party. The core allegations focus on direct infringement through making, using, and selling (Compl. ¶25).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants' infringement "was willful" (Compl. ¶22). It further alleges that Defendants operate in a clandestine manner using multiple aliases and are in communication with each other regarding tactics for "evading detection, pending litigation, and potential new lawsuits," which may be used to support a finding of willfulness (Compl. ¶17, ¶19).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A primary evidentiary challenge will be one of identification and proof: can the Plaintiff successfully identify the anonymous Defendants and procure examples of their specific accused products to compare against the patented design?
- The central legal issue will be one of visual similarity: once specific products are identified, are they "substantially the same" as the design claimed in the '299 Patent from the perspective of an ordinary observer, or are there sufficient visual differences to avoid infringement?
- A key procedural question will be the viability of grouping numerous, separately operated e-commerce stores as a single defendant class, which rests on the allegation that their activities "constitute the same occurrence or series of occurrences" (Compl. ¶3).