Dyson Technology Ltd v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Dyson Technology Limited (United Kingdom)
  • Defendant: SHOP1102191027 STORE and the Individuals and Entities Operating SHOP1102191027 STORE (People's Republic of China or other foreign jurisdictions)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Greer, Burns & Crain, Ltd.
• Case Identification: 1:25-cv-10207, N.D. Ill., 08/28/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is based on allegations that Defendants operate interactive e-commerce stores that target consumers in the United States, including Illinois, by offering shipping to the district and accepting payment in U.S. currency.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ sale of certain hair styling and hair care apparatuses through online stores infringes two U.S. design patents covering the ornamental appearance of such products.
• Technical Context: The dispute is in the high-end consumer appliance market, specifically for premium hair styling tools where distinctive product design is a significant market differentiator.
• Key Procedural History: The filing is an amended complaint against numerous, unidentified entities operating under various seller aliases, a common characteristic of litigation targeting online counterfeiters. The complaint alleges these tactics are used to conceal identities and evade enforcement.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Design Patent No. D853,642 - “HAIR STYLING AND HAIR CARE APPARATUS”

• Issued: July 9, 2019

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: Design patents do not solve technical problems but rather protect the non-functional, aesthetic appearance of an article of manufacture. The goal is to create a new, original, and ornamental design that distinguishes a product in the marketplace (Compl. ¶¶ 5, 8).
• The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific ornamental design for a hair styling apparatus as depicted in its figures (D853642 Patent, Claim). The design features a wand-like apparatus with a main cylindrical body, a distinct arrangement of circular controls, a textured grip portion near the base, and a specific, slightly tapered styling head with fluted surface details (D853,642 Patent, Figs. 1, 3, 6). The complaint includes several views of this design (Compl. p. 4, FIGS. 1-2).
• Technical Importance: The complaint alleges that Dyson products are known for their "distinctive patented designs" which consumers associate with quality and innovation (Compl. ¶8).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The patent contains a single claim for the ornamental design as shown in the patent's drawings.
• The essential visual elements of the claimed design include:
  • The overall configuration of a cylindrical wand-like body with an attached styling head.
  • The specific proportions and contours of the body and head.
  • The placement and circular shape of the user controls on the main body.
  • The textured pattern on the handle section adjacent to the power cord.
  • The tapered, fluted appearance of the styling head attachment.

U.S. Design Patent No. D852,415 - “HAIR STYLING AND HAIR CARE APPARATUS”

• Issued: June 25, 2019

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: As with the ’642 Patent, the objective is the creation of a new, original, and ornamental design for a consumer product (Compl. ¶¶ 5, 8).
• The Patented Solution: The ’415 Patent claims the ornamental design for the handle portion of a hair styling apparatus (D852415 Patent, Claim). A critical feature of this patent is its use of broken lines to illustrate the styling head and power cord, which indicates that those elements are for illustrative purposes only and "form no part of the claimed design" (D852,415 Patent, Description). The protected design is therefore limited to the main body or handle itself (D852,415 Patent, Figs. 1-7).
• Technical Importance: By securing a design patent on the handle alone, the patent owner may be able to assert infringement against products that use a visually similar handle, even if paired with differently designed attachments.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The patent contains a single claim for the ornamental design as shown and described.
• The essential visual elements of the claimed design are focused solely on the handle and include:
  • The cylindrical shape and proportions of the main body.
  • The specific arrangement of circular controls.
  • The textured grip pattern near the bottom of the handle.
  • The interface area where a styling head would attach.
  • Crucially, the styling head and cord are explicitly disclaimed from the scope of the design.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused products are identified as "the hair styling and hair care apparatus shown in Exhibit 1" (Compl. ¶3). This exhibit was not included in the provided court filing. The products are referred to generally as the "Infringing Products" (Compl. ¶3).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that Defendants make, use, offer for sale, and sell the Infringing Products through e-commerce stores operating under various "Seller Aliases" on platforms such as Amazon, eBay, and AliExpress (Compl. ¶12). The complaint further alleges these stores are designed to appear as authorized retailers to "unknowing consumers" and that the Infringing Products trade upon Dyson's reputation (Compl. ¶¶ 3, 15). The complaint includes a perspective view of the patented design from the '642 Patent, which the accused products allegedly infringe (Compl. p. 4, FIG. 1).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide a detailed claim chart. The following table summarizes the infringement theory for the ornamental design based on the complaint's allegations. The legal standard for design patent infringement is whether an "ordinary observer," familiar with the prior art, would be deceived into purchasing the accused product believing it to be the patented design.

D853,642 Patent Infringement Allegations

D852,415 Patent Infringement Allegations

Identified Points of Contention

• Factual Question: The central issue will be a visual comparison between the patented designs and the accused products. The key question for the court will be whether the accused products are substantially the same in appearance as the designs claimed in the ’642 and ’415 patents from the perspective of an ordinary observer.
• Scope Questions: For the ’415 Patent, a potential point of contention may be the proper application of the infringement test to a design that disclaims the styling head. The analysis must focus only on the appearance of the handle of the accused product, which raises the question of whether similarity in the handle alone is sufficient for a finding of infringement if the overall products have different head attachments.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In design patent cases, the "claim" is understood to be the drawings themselves. Formal claim construction is less common than in utility patent cases. However, the interpretation of what the drawings show and protect is central.

• The Term: "The ornamental design... as shown and described," particularly with respect to the portions shown in broken lines in the ’415 Patent.
• Context and Importance: The scope of the ’415 Patent is strictly limited to the handle, as the styling head and cord are shown in broken lines. Practitioners may focus on this distinction because it dictates that the infringement analysis for the ’415 Patent must ignore the appearance of the head on the accused product. This prevents the patentee from claiming an ornamental design for a combination of a handle and head while only showing the handle in solid lines.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A defendant might incorrectly argue that the overall visual impression of the accused product, including its head, should be compared to the overall impression of the patented design in context. This position is generally inconsistent with established law on the effect of broken lines.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent specification provides dispositive evidence for a narrower scope, stating that "The broken lines shown in the drawings illustrate portions of a hair styling and hair care apparatus that form no part of the claimed design" (D852,415 Patent, Description). This language definitively limits the claimed design to the handle shown in solid lines.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes a general allegation of direct and/or indirect infringement and the prayer for relief requests an injunction against "aiding, abetting, [or] contributing to" infringement (Compl. ¶24; Prayer for Relief ¶1(b)). However, the factual allegations focus on Defendants' own making, using, and selling activities rather than inducing infringement by third parties.
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is explicitly alleged (Compl. ¶21). The complaint asserts this is based on Defendants "knowingly and willfully" importing and selling the Infringing Products (Compl. ¶20). It further alleges that operators like Defendants communicate through websites and chat rooms regarding tactics for evading detection and litigation, which, if proven, may support a finding of willful infringement (Compl. ¶18).

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

1. A central evidentiary issue will be one of visual comparison: Assuming the accused products are presented to the court, are their ornamental designs substantially the same as Dyson’s patented designs in the eyes of an ordinary observer, thereby creating a deceptive similarity?
2. A key legal question will be one of claim scope: For the ’415 Patent, the infringement analysis will require properly isolating the visual appearance of the accused product’s handle from its styling head. The case may test whether similarity in this single, core component is sufficient for infringement, even if other parts of the products differ.
3. The case presents a significant procedural challenge: Can the Plaintiff successfully identify, serve, and enforce a judgment against numerous, anonymous defendants allegedly operating from foreign jurisdictions known to have "lax intellectual property enforcement systems"? (Compl. ¶10).