DCT

1:25-cv-10216

Dyson Technology Ltd v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:25-cv-10216, N.D. Ill., 08/26/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on allegations that Defendants operate interactive e-commerce stores that directly target and make sales to consumers in the United States, including within the Northern District of Illinois.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ sale of unauthorized battery packs through various online storefronts infringes a U.S. design patent covering the ornamental appearance of a battery pack.
  • Technical Context: The dispute centers on the ornamental design of a component for consumer electronics, where distinctive product appearance is a key element of brand identity and market recognition.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint is structured as a "Schedule A" action, a common procedural posture for targeting numerous, often anonymous, online sellers who allegedly operate in concert from foreign jurisdictions with lax intellectual property enforcement.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2013-02-18 ’299 Patent Priority Date
2014-08-05 U.S. Patent No. D710,299 Issues
2025-08-26 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. D710,299 - "Battery Pack"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. D710,299, "Battery Pack," issued August 5, 2014.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Design patents protect the ornamental, non-functional appearance of an article. The complaint suggests that in the consumer electronics space, a key challenge is creating a product with a "unique and innovative design" that is "instantly recognizable" to consumers and distinguishes the product from competitors (Compl. ¶5).
  • The Patented Solution: The D710,299 patent claims a specific ornamental design for a battery pack. The overall visual impression, as shown in the patent's figures, is of a device with a horizontally-oriented, rectangular base with rounded edges, from which a complex, multi-faceted vertical connector structure rises at an angle (D'299 Patent, FIG. 1, 4). This combination of a simple base with a distinct, technical-looking connector forms the core of the claimed design (D'299 Patent, DESCRIPTION).
  • Technical Importance: The complaint alleges that Dyson's designs are "broadly recognized by consumers" and are associated with the "quality and innovation that the public has come to expect from Dyson Products" (Compl. ¶8).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • Design patents contain a single claim. The asserted claim is: "The ornamental design for a battery pack, as shown and described" (D'299 Patent, CLAIM).
  • The scope of this claim is defined by the seven figures provided in the patent, which depict the design from perspective, front, rear, side, opposite side, top, and bottom views (D'299 Patent, FIG. 1-7).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused instrumentalities are "battery pack[s]" referred to as the "Infringing Products" (Compl. ¶3).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges these products are unauthorized and unlicensed copies sold by Defendants through numerous e-commerce stores operating under various "Seller Aliases" on platforms such as Amazon, eBay, Temu, and Walmart (Compl. ¶3, ¶12). The complaint asserts these online stores are designed to appear as "authorized online retailers, outlet stores, or wholesalers" to deceive consumers (Compl. ¶15). A key visual from the complaint is the depiction of the patented design itself, which serves as the benchmark for infringement (Compl. p. 4, FIG. 1). This figure shows a perspective view of the battery pack design that Plaintiff alleges is being copied.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not contain a claim chart. The infringement theory is based on the "ordinary observer" test for design patent infringement, which involves a visual comparison of the accused product to the patented design. The complaint alleges that Defendants are "making, using, offering for sale, selling, and/or importing" products that "infringe directly and/or indirectly the ornamental design claimed in the Dyson Design" (Compl. ¶25). The central allegation is that the visual appearance of the Infringing Products is substantially the same as the design shown in the ’299 Patent, such that an ordinary observer would be deceived (Compl. ¶3, ¶25).

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Visual Similarity: The dispositive question will be whether an ordinary observer, giving the attention a purchaser usually gives, would find the accused products' design substantially the same as the design claimed in the ’299 Patent. This analysis considers the design as a whole and requires a side-by-side visual comparison.
    • Evidentiary Questions: A threshold issue for the Plaintiff will be to produce sufficient evidence showing the specific designs of the products sold by each of the numerous, anonymous Defendants listed on Schedule A.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

Claim construction is generally not a central feature of design patent litigation. The single claim of the ’299 Patent recites "The ornamental design for a battery pack, as shown and described" (D'299 Patent, CLAIM).

  • The Term: "battery pack"
  • Context and Importance: This term identifies the article of manufacture to which the ornamental design is applied. Its construction is unlikely to be a point of contention, as the dispute centers on the visual similarity of the designs, not the functional nature of the underlying product. Practitioners may note that courts typically find detailed claim construction unnecessary in design patent cases where the drawings themselves are clear.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation: The patent's title ("BATTERY PACK") and the claim language itself establish the article of manufacture (D'299 Patent, (54)). The figures provide the sole definition of the claimed design's scope (D'299 Patent, FIG. 1-7). There is no specification language that would support a broader or narrower interpretation of the design itself.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes a conclusory allegation of indirect infringement (Compl. ¶25) and requests injunctive relief against "aiding, abetting, [or] contributing to" infringement (Prayer for Relief ¶1(b)). However, the complaint does not plead specific facts detailing how Defendants might be inducing or contributing to infringement by third parties, focusing instead on Defendants' own direct acts of making, using, selling, and importing the accused products.
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is expressly alleged (Compl. ¶22). The complaint asserts that Defendants act "knowingly and willfully" by operating e-commerce stores that are designed to appear legitimate and conceal Defendants' true identities, suggesting a deliberate intent to trade on Dyson's goodwill and patented designs (Compl. ¶15, ¶21).

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

  1. A primary issue will be one of visual comparison: Does the ornamental design of the accused battery packs create a visual impression that is substantially the same as the ’299 Patent's claimed design in the view of an ordinary observer, considering the design as a whole?

  2. A significant procedural question will be one of enforcement and jurisdiction: Can the Plaintiff successfully serve, establish personal jurisdiction over, and ultimately enforce a judgment against the numerous, allegedly foreign-based and anonymous e-commerce operators identified only by seller aliases on a schedule?