DCT

1:25-cv-10648

Dyson Technology Ltd v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
    • Plaintiff: Dyson Technology Limited (United Kingdom)
    • Defendant: E-BAY-NO.2 and the Individuals and Entities Operating E-BAY-NO.2 (allegedly People's Republic of China or other foreign jurisdictions)
    • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Greer, Burns & Crain, Ltd.
  • Case Identification: 1:25-cv-10648, N.D. Ill., 09/09/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is based on allegations that Defendants operate interactive e-commerce stores that target and make sales to consumers throughout the United States, including residents of Illinois.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ sale of certain hair styling and hair care apparatus via online marketplaces infringes two U.S. design patents covering the ornamental appearance of Plaintiff's products.
  • Technical Context: The dispute is in the high-end consumer hair care appliance market, where distinctive and recognizable product design is a significant factor in brand identity and commercial success.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that the Defendants are a network of unknown individuals and entities operating under multiple online aliases to conceal their identities and evade intellectual property enforcement. No prior litigation or administrative proceedings are mentioned.

Case Timeline

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

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

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

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. D853,642, titled "Hair styling and hair care apparatus", issued on July 9, 2019.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Design patents protect the ornamental appearance of an article of manufacture rather than its utility. The implicit problem addressed is the need for a novel, non-obvious, and aesthetically distinct ornamental design for a hair styling device to differentiate it in the marketplace (D’642 Patent, Claim).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific ornamental design for a "hair styling and hair care apparatus" as depicted in its figures (D’642 Patent, Claim). The design is characterized by an elongated, cylindrical main body with a specific arrangement of two circular control buttons, a textured grip section near the base, and a distinct interchangeable tip with a fluted or ribbed exterior surface (D’642 Patent, FIGS. 1, 3, 6).
  • Technical Importance: In the consumer electronics and personal care industries, unique ornamental designs serve to create strong brand recognition and consumer association with quality and innovation (Compl. ¶5, ¶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" (D’642 Patent, Claim).
  • The scope of this claim is defined by the visual features depicted in solid lines in the patent's seven figures, which include:
    • The overall elongated, wand-like configuration of the apparatus.
    • A cylindrical main body featuring two circular, flush-mounted buttons.
    • A tapered end with a textured grip pattern.
    • A distinct, removable head or tip piece with a series of external, longitudinal ribs.

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

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. D852,415, titled "Hair styling and hair care apparatus", issued on June 25, 2019.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: As with the ’642 Patent, this design patent seeks to protect a unique ornamental appearance for a hair styling apparatus to distinguish it from other products (D’415 Patent, Claim).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent claims the ornamental design for the main body or handle of a hair styling apparatus (D’415 Patent, Claim). Key features of the design include a smooth, elongated cylindrical body, a specific grouping and placement of circular control buttons, and a textured, darker-toned band at the base where the power cord attaches (D’415 Patent, FIGS. 1-3). The broken lines in the figures indicate that elements like the power cord itself are not part of the claimed design (D’415 Patent, Description).
  • Technical Importance: This design for the main handle component establishes a core visual identity for the product line, which can be combined with various functional attachments while maintaining a consistent brand aesthetic (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" (D’415 Patent, Claim).
  • The claimed design, shown in solid lines in the patent's seven figures, is defined by features including:
    • The overall proportions and shape of the cylindrical handle.
    • A specific arrangement of circular buttons on the handle's surface.
    • A textured band located at the bottom of the handle, adjacent to the cord exit.
    • A flat, circular top surface.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are "hair styling and hair care apparatus" that are allegedly "unauthorized and unlicensed," referred to collectively as the "Infringing Products" (Compl. ¶3).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that Defendants operate numerous e-commerce stores under various "Seller Aliases" on platforms such as Amazon, eBay, AliExpress, and Walmart to sell the Infringing Products to consumers in the United States (Compl. ¶3, ¶12). The complaint asserts that these stores are designed to appear as authorized retailers to "unknowing consumers" and that the products sold therein embody Dyson's patented designs (Compl. ¶3, ¶15). The complaint references an "Exhibit 1" as showing the Infringing Products, but this exhibit was not included in the provided filing (Compl. ¶3). The complaint presents figures from the patents-in-suit, such as FIG. 1 of the '642 Patent, to illustrate the protected design (Compl. p. 4).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not contain a claim chart or a detailed element-by-element comparison. The infringement allegation is based on the assertion that the overall ornamental appearance of the "Infringing Products" is substantially the same as the designs claimed in the patents-in-suit.

The core of a design patent infringement claim 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 product is the same as the patented design (Compl. ¶24). The complaint alleges that the Infringing Products feature Dyson's designs and are sold in a manner that trades on Dyson's reputation (Compl. ¶3, ¶5).

Identified Points of Contention:

  • Scope Questions: A central issue will be the overall visual similarity between the accused products and the patented designs. The analysis will depend on whether the court perceives the designs' general configurations as the primary protected feature or focuses on the combination of more specific details, such as the exact texture of the grip or the precise arrangement of buttons.
  • Factual Questions: The key factual question is whether the accused products are "substantially the same" in appearance as the designs claimed in the ’642 and ’415 patents. Because the complaint does not include images of the accused products, its infringement allegations currently lack specific evidentiary support demonstrating the visual comparison.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In design patent litigation, the "claim" is the design as a whole, depicted in the drawings, rather than a set of text-based terms. The analysis focuses on the scope of the claimed ornamental design.

  • The "Term": The overall ornamental design for a "hair styling and hair care apparatus."
  • Context and Importance: The resolution of the case will depend on the scope afforded to the designs in the ’642 and ’415 patents. The key question is how similar an accused product must be to be considered infringing, which involves determining which aspects of the drawings are ornamental and which, if any, are purely functional.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party arguing for broader protection may point to the overall visual impression created by the combination of features: the clean, cylindrical wand shape, the minimalist button interface, and the contrasting textured grip. They might argue that these create a distinctive aesthetic that is protected against products with the same general look and feel, even with minor differences (D'415 Patent, FIG. 1; D'642 Patent, FIG. 1). The patents' use of broken lines to disclaim features like the power cord focuses the claim on the core design of the apparatus itself (D'415 Patent, Description).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party arguing for a narrower scope could contend that specific, detailed features are what make the design novel and non-obvious, thereby limiting the claim's scope. For the '642 Patent, this could include the precise shape and number of flutes on the tip piece (D'642 Patent, FIG. 6). For the '415 Patent, it could include the exact diameter and spacing of the control buttons (D'415 Patent, FIG. 7).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes a general allegation of indirect infringement (Compl. ¶24) and the prayer for relief requests an injunction against "aiding, abetting, [or] contributing to" infringing activities (Compl. p. 13, ¶1(b)). However, the complaint does not plead specific facts detailing how Defendants might have knowingly induced or contributed to infringement by third parties.
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendants "knowingly and willfully" importing and selling the Infringing Products (Compl. ¶20, ¶21). The complaint asserts this knowledge is evidenced by Defendants' alleged pattern of conduct, such as operating under multiple aliases to conceal their identities and evade enforcement actions (Compl. ¶11, ¶17).

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

  • A primary issue will be one of visual comparison: once the accused products are produced as evidence, are they "substantially the same" as the designs shown in the ’642 and ’415 patents from the perspective of an ordinary observer, or are there sufficient visual differences to avoid infringement?
  • A significant procedural question will be one of enforcement and identity: given the allegation that Defendants are a network of online sellers operating under aliases and residing in foreign jurisdictions, a central challenge for the Plaintiff may be conclusively identifying the responsible parties, effecting service, and enforcing any potential judgment.