DCT

1:25-cv-10063

Dyson Technology Ltd v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations

Log In
Key Events
Amended Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:25-cv-10063, N.D. Ill., 08/26/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is based on allegations that Defendants operate interactive e-commerce stores that target and sell products to consumers in the United States, including Illinois.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ online sales of certain hair styling and hair care apparatuses infringe two of Plaintiff's U.S. design patents.
  • Technical Context: The dispute concerns the ornamental design of handheld electronic hair care appliances, a market segment where distinctive product appearance is a significant factor in consumer recognition and brand identity.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention prior litigation between the named parties, IPR proceedings, or licensing history related to the patents-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2017-05-30 Earliest Priority Date for D853,642 and D852,415 Patents
2019-06-25 U.S. Patent No. D852,415 Issues
2019-07-09 U.S. Patent No. D853,642 Issues
2025-08-26 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. D853,642 - “Hair styling and hair care apparatus”

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Design patents do not address technical problems; they protect the novel, non-obvious, and ornamental aspects of an article of manufacture.
  • The Patented Solution: The ’642 Patent claims the specific ornamental design for a hair styling apparatus. The design features a main cylindrical body with controls, a textured grip portion at the base where a power cord emerges, and a distinct, tapered styling head attachment with longitudinal fins (D853,642 Patent, FIG. 1, FIG. 3). The overall impression is one of a sleek, modern, wand-like appliance.
  • Technical Importance: In the consumer appliance market, a distinctive and recognizable ornamental design can serve as a key brand identifier and a significant driver of commercial success (Compl. ¶¶5, 8).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • Design patents contain a single claim, which is pictorial rather than textual. The asserted claim is: "The ornamental design for a hair styling and hair care apparatus, as shown and described" (D853,642 Patent, Claim).

U.S. Patent No. D852,415 - “Hair styling and hair care apparatus”

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: This design patent protects the ornamental appearance of an article, not its utilitarian features.
  • 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 the elongated cylindrical body, the specific placement and shape of button controls, a distinct end cap, and a textured band near the base where a cord would attach (D852,415 Patent, FIG. 1, FIG. 6). Unlike the ’642 Patent, this design does not include a styling head attachment.
  • Technical Importance: By securing a design patent on the core handle component, the patent holder can protect the foundational visual element of a product line across different models that may use various functional attachments (Compl. ¶8).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The single asserted claim is: "The ornamental design for a hair styling and hair care apparatus, as shown and described" (D852,415 Patent, Claim).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused products are identified as the "hair styling and hair care apparatus shown in Exhibit 1" to the complaint, referred to collectively as the "Infringing Products" (Compl. ¶3). Exhibit 1 was not attached to the provided document.

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges that Defendants operate numerous e-commerce stores under various "Seller Aliases" on platforms like Amazon, eBay, and Walmart to market and sell the Infringing Products to consumers in the United States (Compl. ¶¶11-12). These stores are designed to appear as authorized retailers to "unknowing consumers," and the products sold are alleged to be "unauthorized and unlicensed" copies that embody Plaintiff's patented designs (Compl. ¶¶3, 15). The complaint includes a table showing figures from the asserted patents to illustrate the "Dyson Designs" at issue. The complaint displays a perspective view of the D'642 design in FIG. 1, which depicts the wand-like apparatus with a finned styling head (Compl. ¶8, p. 4).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not contain a claim chart or side-by-side comparison of the patented designs and the accused products. The infringement theory is based on the legal standard for design patents, which 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 core of the infringement allegation is that the accused "Infringing Products" are visually identical or nearly identical to the ornamental designs claimed in the ’642 and ’415 patents (Compl. ¶¶3, 24). The complaint alleges that Defendants, without authorization, make, use, sell, and import products that "infringe directly and/or indirectly the ornamental designs claimed in the Dyson Designs" (Compl. ¶24).

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Visual Similarity: A central question for the court will be whether the overall visual appearance of the accused products is substantially the same as the designs claimed in the asserted patents. This will require a side-by-side comparison of the accused products with the patent drawings.
    • Scope Questions: The analysis may question whether any minor differences between the accused products and the patent drawings are sufficient to distinguish them in the eyes of an ordinary observer, or whether such differences are trivial and do not alter the overall visual impression.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

Claim construction of specific textual terms is not expected to be a central issue in this case. In design patent litigation, the claim is defined by the drawings as a whole, and the infringement analysis focuses on the overall visual appearance of the claimed design compared to the accused product, rather than on the interpretation of written claim limitations.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes a general allegation of direct "and/or indirect" infringement (Compl. ¶24) and requests an injunction against "aiding, abetting, contributing to, or otherwise assisting anyone" in infringing (Prayer for Relief ¶1(b)). However, it does not plead specific facts detailing a theory of induced or contributory infringement.
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants' infringement was willful (Compl. ¶21). The basis for this allegation appears to be the assertion that Defendants are part of a network of infringers who knowingly and intentionally copy Plaintiff's well-known product designs and use tactics like multiple "Seller Aliases" to conceal their identities and evade enforcement actions (Compl. ¶¶17, 20).

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

  • A core issue will be one of visual identity: From the perspective of an ordinary observer, is the overall ornamental design of the accused hair styling products substantially the same as the designs depicted in the D'642 and D'415 patents, such that the observer would be deceived?
  • A key evidentiary question will be establishing the specific designs of the products sold by the various named and unnamed Defendants, as the complaint alleges they operate through a diffuse and intentionally obscured network of online storefronts.
  • The case also presents a significant enforcement question: Assuming infringement is found, what judicial mechanisms can effectively identify the responsible parties and enforce an injunction and monetary judgment against a network of foreign-based e-commerce operators alleged to be using concealment tactics to evade legal accountability?