Dyson Technology Ltd v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Dyson Technology Limited (United Kingdom)
  • Defendant: HEILONGJIANGZHIZHUANGR0 and the Individuals and Entities Operating HEILONGJIANGZHIZHUANGR0 (People's Republic of China or other foreign jurisdictions)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Greer, Burns & Crain, Ltd.
• Case Identification: 1:25-cv-10477, N.D. Ill., 09/04/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is 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 state of Illinois.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ sale of certain hair styling and hair care apparatus through online marketplaces infringes the ornamental designs protected by two U.S. design patents.
• Technical Context: The dispute is in the field of consumer personal care appliances, a market where distinctive and recognizable product design can be a significant commercial asset.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not identify prior litigation or administrative proceedings involving these specific patents or defendants. The lawsuit targets a collective of e-commerce operators identified by seller aliases, a legal strategy often employed to combat diffuse online infringement originating from foreign jurisdictions.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2017-05-30	Earliest Priority Date for '642 and '415 Patents
2019-06-25	U.S. Patent No. D852,415 Issued
2019-07-09	U.S. Patent No. D853,642 Issued
2025-09-04	Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Design Patent No. D853,642 - "Hair styling and hair care apparatus"

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: Design patents do not articulate a technical problem in the manner of utility patents. Instead, they protect the novel, non-obvious, and ornamental appearance of an article of manufacture (D'642 Patent, Claim). The implicit challenge addressed is creating a unique and aesthetically distinct visual design for a product in a competitive consumer market.
• The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific ornamental design for a hair styling apparatus as depicted in its seven figures (D'642 Patent, Description). The design consists of a wand-like body with a particular combination of proportions, button placements, a textured grip portion near the cord, and a fluted tip.
• Technical Importance: The complaint alleges that Dyson's product designs are "distinctive" and "broadly recognized by consumers," serving to associate the products with the quality and innovation of the Dyson brand (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'642 Patent, Claim).
• The scope of a design patent claim is defined by the visual appearance of the article in the drawings. Key visual features of the asserted design include:
  • The overall elongated, cylindrical configuration of the apparatus body.
  • The specific size, shape, and arrangement of two circular control buttons on the main body.
  • The shape and surface texture of the grip portion at the rear of the apparatus.
  • The tapered, multi-finned, or fluted appearance of the front nozzle.

U.S. Design Patent No. D852,415 - "Hair styling and hair care apparatus"

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: As with the '642 Patent, the '415 Patent protects a specific ornamental design for a hair styling tool (D'415 Patent, Claim).
• The Patented Solution: The patent claims the ornamental design shown in its seven figures, which depict an apparatus with a generally cylindrical body, a distinct perforated pattern at the nozzle, and a textured grip (D'415 Patent, Description). This design is visually related to but distinct from the design of the ’642 Patent, particularly in the appearance of the nozzle and grip texture.
• Technical Importance: This patent is part of a portfolio of "Dyson Designs" that the complaint asserts are "enormously popular and even iconic" and serve to identify genuine Dyson products to the public (Compl. ¶5).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The patent asserts a single claim for "the ornamental design for a hair styling and hair care apparatus, as shown and described" (D'415 Patent, Claim).
• Key visual features that constitute the claimed design include:
  • The overall cylindrical form factor of the main body.
  • The specific arrangement of control buttons.
  • A distinct textured pattern on the grip section near the cord exit.
  • A front-facing nozzle featuring a perforated cap.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint identifies the accused products as "the hair styling and hair care apparatus shown in Exhibit 1," collectively referred to as the "Infringing Products" (Compl. ¶3).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that Defendants market, sell, and import these products into the United States, targeting consumers in Illinois and elsewhere through "fully interactive, e-commerce stores" operating under various aliases on platforms such as Amazon, eBay, AliExpress, Alibaba, and Walmart (Compl. ¶¶2, 12). The complaint asserts that these online stores are designed to appear to consumers as authorized retailers or wholesalers of genuine products (Compl. ¶15). The complaint does not provide a technical description of the accused products' functionality, as the infringement claim is based on their ornamental appearance.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not contain or append a claim chart. The infringement theory is presented through narrative allegations. The complaint alleges that the Defendants are "making, using, offering for sale, selling, and/or importing" products that "infringe directly and/or indirectly the ornamental designs claimed in the Dyson Designs" (Compl. ¶24). The legal standard for design patent infringement is whether, in the eye of an ordinary observer, the accused design is substantially the same as the claimed design, such that the observer would be induced to purchase the accused product supposing it to be the patented one.

The complaint provides visual evidence of the patented designs by reproducing figures from the patents-in-suit. For example, a perspective view of the design claimed in the '642 Patent is shown in a table within the complaint (Compl. p. 4, FIG. 1). Similarly, a perspective view of the design claimed in the '415 Patent is also depicted (Compl. p. 6, FIG. 1). The complaint asserts that the products sold by Defendants, which are allegedly depicted in the unattached Exhibit 1, embody these patented ornamental designs (Compl. ¶3).

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A central question for the court will be the application of the "ordinary observer" test. This will involve a visual comparison of the accused products with the designs claimed in the '642 and '415 Patents, considering the overall appearance and the effect of any visual differences between them.
  • Technical Questions: The primary evidentiary question will be whether the accused products are, in fact, visually and substantially the same as the designs depicted in the patent figures. The analysis will depend on the specific appearance of the accused products, which are referenced in the complaint but not shown in the provided document.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In design patent cases, claim construction is typically not focused on textual terms but on the visual scope of the design as depicted in the patent's drawings.

• The Term: "The ornamental design... as shown and described."
• Context and Importance: The interpretation of this phrase defines the scope of patent protection. The analysis centers on determining which visual elements in the drawings are part of the claimed ornamental design and which are disclaimed or purely functional. Practitioners may focus on this issue because the distinction between ornamental and functional features can be dispositive for infringement.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim covers the overall visual impression created by the combination of all features shown in solid lines in the patent figures. The design is not limited to any single feature but protects the aesthetic whole.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The scope of protection is limited to the specific shapes, configurations, and surface ornamentations exactly as depicted. For instance, the '415 Patent uses broken lines to illustrate the power cord, which expressly disclaims the cord from being part of the protected design, thereby limiting the claim to the apparatus itself ('415 Patent, Description). Furthermore, a defendant may argue that certain elements of the design are dictated by function and are therefore not protectable as part of the "ornamental design."

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: While no separate count for indirect infringement is pleaded, the prayer for relief seeks to enjoin Defendants from "aiding, abetting, contributing to, or otherwise assisting anyone" in making or selling the Infringing Products (Compl. Prayer ¶1(b)).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants' infringement was "willful" (Compl. ¶21). This allegation is based on assertions that Defendants acted "knowingly and willfully" to import and sell products that infringe the Dyson Designs (Compl. ¶20), and engaged in evasive tactics such as operating under multiple aliases to conceal their identities and continue operations despite enforcement efforts (Compl. ¶¶11, 17).

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

• A core issue will be one of visual comparison: are the accused hair styling tools sold by the Defendants substantially the same in overall ornamental appearance as the designs claimed in the '642 and '415 patents, from the perspective of an ordinary observer? The outcome will depend on a direct visual assessment of the products at issue.
• A key procedural question will be one of enforcement and identity: can the Plaintiff successfully identify, serve, and establish jurisdiction over the individuals and entities operating behind the "Seller Aliases"? The complaint's structure suggests that overcoming the anonymity afforded by e-commerce platforms will be a primary challenge in the litigation.