DCT

1:25-cv-10152

Dyson Technology Ltd v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
    • Plaintiff: Dyson Technology Limited (United Kingdom)
    • Defendant: The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule “A” (allegedly People's Republic of China or other foreign jurisdictions)
    • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Greer, Burns & Crain, Ltd.
  • Case Identification: 1:25-cv-10152, N.D. Ill., 08/25/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is based on allegations that Defendants operate interactive e-commerce stores that target business activities and sales toward consumers in Illinois.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that numerous e-commerce operators are making, using, selling, and importing hair styling apparatus that infringes two of its U.S. design patents.
  • Technical Context: The dispute is in the consumer personal care appliance sector, where unique and recognizable ornamental product designs are significant drivers of brand identity and commercial value.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, licensing history, or post-grant proceedings involving 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
2025-08-25 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. D853,642 - "Hair Styling and Hair Care Apparatus," issued July 9, 2019 (’642 Patent)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Design patents address the challenge of creating a novel, non-obvious, and ornamental design for an article of manufacture that distinguishes it from prior art designs in the marketplace (D’642 Patent, p. 1, CLAIM).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent protects the specific overall visual appearance of a wand-like hair styling apparatus. The claimed design is characterized by its particular proportions, a main cylindrical body, a textured grip section near the base, specific placement of control buttons, and a distinctive tapered and fluted tip (D’642 Patent, p. 1, DESCRIPTION; FIGS. 1-7).
  • Technical Importance: In the consumer appliance market, a unique ornamental design can serve as a key element of brand identity, which the complaint alleges has become "iconic" and "instantly recognizable" to the public (Compl. ¶5).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The patent contains a single claim for "the ornamental design for a hair styling and hair care apparatus, as shown and described" (D’642 Patent, p. 1, CLAIM). This claim covers the entire visual appearance of the apparatus as depicted in the patent’s figures.

U.S. Patent No. D852,415 - "Hair Styling and Hair Care Apparatus," issued June 25, 2019 (’415 Patent)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: As with the ’642 Patent, this design patent seeks to protect a unique and ornamental design for a hair styling product (D’415 Patent, p. 1, CLAIM).
  • The Patented Solution: This patent protects the ornamental design for the main body or handle portion of a hair styling apparatus. Its key visual features include the cylindrical shape of the body, the specific configuration of the control buttons, and a textured band near the base. The design, as claimed, explicitly disclaims the top or "working end" of the apparatus, which is indicated via broken lines in the patent drawings (D’415 Patent, p. 1, DESCRIPTION).
  • Technical Importance: The handle of a handheld appliance is a primary point of user interaction and a significant contributor to the product's overall aesthetic and brand identity (Compl. ¶8).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The patent contains a single claim for "the ornamental design for a hair styling and hair care apparatus, as shown and described" (D’415 Patent, p. 1, CLAIM). The scope of this claim is limited to the handle portion shown in solid lines in the patent’s figures.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are "hair styling and hair care apparatus," referred to as the "Infringing Products," which are sold by Defendants through various e-commerce stores (Compl. ¶3).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint focuses on the ornamental appearance of the accused products rather than their technical functionality. It alleges that Defendants operate e-commerce stores under various "Seller Aliases" on platforms such as Amazon, eBay, and AliExpress (Compl. ¶12). These storefronts are allegedly designed to appear as authorized retailers to "unknowing consumers," using content and images that make it difficult to distinguish them from legitimate channels (Compl. ¶15).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the "Infringing Products" embody the patented ornamental designs but does not provide a claim chart exhibit or a side-by-side visual comparison between the patented designs and the accused products. The infringement theory is presented narratively.

The complaint asserts that Defendants are making, using, offering for sale, and/or importing products that infringe the ornamental designs claimed in the ’642 and ’415 patents (Compl. ¶25). The core of the allegation is that the overall visual appearance of the accused products is substantially the same as the patented designs. To define the asserted designs, the complaint incorporates figures directly from the patents. For instance, a perspective view from the ’642 Patent is included to illustrate the claimed ornamental design for the complete hair styling apparatus (Compl. p. 4, FIG. 1). Similarly, perspective views from the ’415 Patent are provided to illustrate the claimed design of the handle portion of the apparatus (Compl. p. 6, FIGS. 1-2). The legal test for design patent infringement will be whether an ordinary observer, giving such attention as a purchaser usually gives, would be deceived into purchasing an accused product believing it to be the patented design.

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: A central question will be whether any visual differences between the accused products and the patented designs are sufficient to lead an ordinary observer to distinguish them. The analysis for the ’642 Patent will concern the apparatus as a whole, while the analysis for the ’415 Patent will be confined to the handle portion only.
  • Technical Questions: The primary question is not technical but visual and factual: does the evidence, once presented, show that the accused products are "substantially the same" in overall visual appearance to the patented designs? The complaint's lack of direct visual comparisons of the accused products prevents an assessment of this question from the pleading alone.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In design patent litigation, the claim is defined by the drawings rather than textual limitations. Accordingly, the legal analysis focuses on interpreting the scope of the visual design shown in the patent figures, not on construing specific textual terms.

  • The Term: "as shown and described"
  • Context and Importance: This phrase, common to all design patent claims, incorporates the visual features depicted in the patent's figures as the definition of the claimed invention. The infringement analysis will turn on how an "ordinary observer" perceives the overall visual impression created by these features, rather than a debate over textual definitions. Practitioners may focus on which specific features in the drawings contribute most significantly to the overall aesthetic impression.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The standard for infringement is "substantial similarity" in overall appearance, not an exact identity of every minute detail. Arguments for a broader scope would focus on the overall impression created by the combination of shapes and proportions, suggesting that minor differences in the accused product do not alter this overall look.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Arguments for a narrower scope would emphasize specific, detailed features shown in the drawings as being essential to the claimed design. For the ’415 Patent, the description explicitly notes that broken lines illustrate portions that "form no part of the claimed design," which is intrinsic evidence that definitively narrows the claim's scope to only the handle portion depicted in solid lines (D’415 Patent, p. 1, DESCRIPTION). For the ’642 Patent, specific features like the fluted tip could be argued as critical limitations of the claimed design (D’642 Patent, FIG. 1).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes a conclusory allegation of direct and/or indirect infringement (Compl. ¶25) and requests an injunction against "aiding, abetting, [or] contributing to" infringement (Prayer ¶1(b)). However, the complaint does not plead specific facts to support the requisite elements of knowledge and intent for induced or contributory infringement against the defendant sellers.
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants' infringement was willful (Compl. ¶22). This claim is based on the allegation that Defendants "knowingly and willfully" offered for sale, sold, and/or imported the accused products without authorization (Compl. ¶21). The pleading does not allege pre-suit notice was provided to the Defendants.

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

  • A core issue will be one of visual similarity: once evidence is introduced, will an ordinary observer, examining the accused products, find their overall ornamental design to be substantially the same as the designs claimed in the '642 and '415 patents, such that the observer would be deceived?
  • A key procedural question will be one of identification and enforcement: given that the defendants are alleged to be numerous, anonymous foreign e-commerce operators using aliases, can the Plaintiff effectively identify, serve, and secure an enforceable judgment against them?
  • A potential legal question will be the application of distinct design scopes: will the infringement analysis properly distinguish between the '642 patent, which claims the entire apparatus including its tip, and the '415 patent, which is narrowly limited to the handle, preventing an improper conflation of the two separate patented designs?