DCT

1:25-cv-10648

Dyson Technology Ltd v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:25-cv-10648, N.D. Ill., 09/04/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is based on allegations that Defendants operate interactive e-commerce stores that target and sell products to consumers in Illinois.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that numerous unidentified e-commerce operators infringe two design patents covering the ornamental appearance of a hair styling apparatus.
  • Technical Context: The dispute is in the high-end personal hair care appliance market, where aesthetic design is a key driver of brand identity and commercial success.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint does not specify any prior litigation or administrative challenges involving the patents-in-suit but notes that its allegations are informed by a pattern of conduct observed in previous, similar cases against other online sellers.

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 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,” issued July 9, 2019 (’642 Patent)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: As a design patent, the ’642 Patent does not describe a technical problem or solution in its specification. Its purpose is to protect the novel, non-functional, ornamental appearance of an article of manufacture (D853,642 Patent, Claim).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific visual appearance of what appears to be a wand or attachment for a hair styling device (D853,642 Patent, FIG. 1-7). Key ornamental features of the design include an elongated, cylindrical body; a tapered tip with recessed longitudinal fins; a distinct collar separating the tip from the main body; two small, circular buttons on the body; and a textured, knurled band near the base where a cord would attach (D853,642 Patent, FIG. 1, 3, 6).
  • Technical Importance: The design contributes to a unique product identity in a consumer market where aesthetics heavily influence purchasing decisions and brand recognition (Compl. ¶5, 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" (D853,642 Patent, Claim).
  • The scope of this claim is defined by the visual representations in Figures 1 through 7 of the patent.

U.S. Design Patent No. D852,415, “HAIR STYLING AND HAIR CARE APPARATUS,” issued June 25, 2019 (’415 Patent)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The ’415 Patent protects the ornamental design of an article, not a technical solution to a problem (D852,415 Patent, Claim).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent claims the ornamental design for what appears to be the main handle or body of a hair styling apparatus (D852,415 Patent, FIG. 1-7). The design’s prominent features include a smooth, cylindrical main body; a perforated end cap; a specific arrangement of two circular control buttons; and a wide, textured band located near the point of egress for a power cord (D852,415 Patent, FIG. 1, 3). The patent's drawings use broken lines to illustrate portions of the apparatus, such as the power cord, that are not part of the claimed design, thereby defining the boundaries of the protected aesthetic (D852,415 Patent, Description).
  • Technical Importance: The claimed design provides a distinctive visual identity for a consumer electronics product, which the complaint alleges is associated with the quality and innovation expected from the Dyson brand (Compl. ¶8).

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" (D852,415 Patent, Claim).
  • The claim's scope is defined by the visual content of Figures 1 through 7 of the patent.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are the "hair styling and hair care apparatus" (referred to as "Infringing Products") that are allegedly made, used, offered for sale, sold, and/or imported by the Defendants (Compl. ¶3).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that Defendants operate e-commerce stores on platforms like Amazon, eBay, and AliExpress, targeting consumers in the United States, including Illinois (Compl. ¶2, 12). These stores are allegedly designed to appear as if they are authorized retailers, and they sell products that embody the patented designs without authorization from Dyson (Compl. ¶15). The complaint alleges these actions trade upon Dyson's reputation and goodwill (Compl. ¶3).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not contain a claim chart. The infringement allegation for a design patent rests on the "ordinary observer" test, which asks whether an ordinary observer, familiar with the prior art designs, would be deceived into believing the accused design is the same as the patented design. The complaint's theory is that the accused products create a visual impression substantially the same as that of the designs claimed in the ’642 and ’415 Patents.

The complaint uses figures from the patents to establish the protected designs. For example, a perspective view of the ’642 Patent's wand-like design is provided to illustrate its claimed features (Compl. p. 4, FIG. 1). Similarly, a perspective view of the ’415 Patent's handle design is depicted to show its claimed ornamental characteristics (Compl. p. 6, FIG. 1). The complaint alleges that the "Infringing Products" shown in its Exhibit 1 (not included in the provided filing excerpts) infringe these patented designs (Compl. ¶3).

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: The central legal question will be the application of the ordinary observer test. The analysis will turn on whether the accused products are substantially similar in their overall ornamental appearance to the designs claimed in the ’642 and ’415 patents.
  • Technical Questions: A potential issue may be the distinction between the protected ornamental features and any unprotected functional aspects of the apparatus. The court may need to consider which elements of the design are dictated by function and therefore outside the scope of design patent protection.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In design patent litigation, the claim is defined by the drawings rather than by textual limitations. Consequently, the traditional process of construing specific claim terms is generally not a central issue. The scope of the design is determined by the overall visual impression of the figures in the patent, and disputes typically focus on the visual comparison between the patented design and the accused product rather than on the definition of written terms.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges that Defendants "infringe directly and/or indirectly the ornamental designs" (Compl. ¶25). The prayer for relief also seeks to enjoin Defendants from "aiding, abetting, contributing to, or otherwise assisting anyone" in infringing the patents (Prayer for Relief ¶1(b)).

Willful Infringement

The complaint alleges that Defendants' infringement was "willful" (Compl. ¶22). This allegation is based on the assertion that Defendants acted "knowingly and willfully" in offering for sale, selling, and importing products that infringe the Dyson designs without any authorization or license (Compl. ¶21).

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

  • A core issue will be one of visual comparison: would an ordinary observer, taking into account any relevant prior art, be deceived into purchasing the Defendants' products believing them to be the same as the designs protected by the '642 and '415 patents?
  • A secondary legal question may concern the scope of patentability: to what extent are the specific visual elements of the claimed designs—such as the finned tip, knurled textures, and button placement—purely ornamental rather than dictated by the function of a hair styling apparatus?
  • A key practical challenge for the case will be one of enforcement: can the Plaintiff successfully identify the anonymous e-commerce operators, establish jurisdiction, and enforce a potential judgment against entities alleged to be operating from foreign jurisdictions and using tactics to conceal their identities?