1:25-cv-10969
Dyson Technology Ltd v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Dyson Technology Limited (United Kingdom)
- Defendant: The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule “A” (allegedly People's Republic of China or other foreign jurisdictions)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Greer, Burns & Crain, Ltd.
- Case Identification: 1:25-cv-10969, N.D. Ill., 09/11/2025
- Venue Allegations: Venue is based on allegations that Defendants operate interactive e-commerce stores that target business activities and sales toward consumers in the United States, including Illinois.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that numerous e-commerce operators are selling hair styling apparatus that infringes two of its U.S. design patents.
- Technical Context: The dispute is in the field of personal hair care appliances, a consumer product category where distinctive ornamental product design can be a significant market differentiator and source of brand identity.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention prior litigation, administrative patent challenges, or licensing history related to the patents-in-suit. The case is structured as an enforcement action against a large number of unidentified online sellers, a common procedural posture for combating alleged online counterfeiting.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2017-05-30 | Earliest Priority Date for D853,642 Patent |
| 2017-05-30 | Earliest Priority Date for D852,415 Patent |
| 2019-06-25 | U.S. Design Patent No. D852,415 Issued |
| 2019-07-09 | U.S. Design Patent No. D853,642 Issued |
| 2025-09-11 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Design Patent No. D853,642 - “Hair styling and hair care apparatus”
The Patented Design
A design patent protects the ornamental appearance of an article of manufacture, not its functional features. The claim of the D853,642 patent covers the specific visual design for a "hair styling and hair care apparatus" as depicted in its figures (D'642 Patent, Claim, Figs. 1-7). Key ornamental features of the design include the overall elongated and cylindrical wand-like form factor, a flared tip with longitudinal grooves, a smooth main body containing two circular buttons, and a textured, larger-diameter grip portion at the base where the power cord enters (D'642 Patent, Figs. 1, 3, 6). The complaint includes a table displaying Figure 1 of the patent, which provides a top perspective view of the claimed design (Compl. p. 4).
Asserted Claims
The patent contains a single claim for the ornamental design as shown and described (D'642 Patent, Claim).
U.S. Design Patent No. D852,415 - “Hair styling and hair care apparatus”
The Patented Design
The D852,415 patent claims an ornamental design for a hair styling apparatus that shares a similar overall form factor with the '642 Patent but has distinct visual features (D'415 Patent, Claim, Figs. 1-7). The claimed design features an elongated cylindrical body with two circular buttons, a perforated cap on the top end, and a textured, mesh-like grip at the base (D'415 Patent, Figs. 1, 4, 6). The patent notes that broken lines in the drawings, such as the depiction of the power cord, illustrate portions of the apparatus that form no part of the claimed design (D'415 Patent, Description). The complaint reproduces figures from the patent, including a perspective view showing the perforated cap and textured base (Compl. p. 6).
Asserted Claims
The patent contains a single claim for the ornamental design as shown and described (D'415 Patent, Claim).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused products are identified as "the hair styling and hair care apparatus shown in Exhibit 1" to the complaint, which are referred to as the "Infringing Products" (Compl. ¶3).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint alleges that the Defendants operate numerous e-commerce stores on platforms such as Amazon, eBay, AliExpress, and Walmart (Compl. ¶12). These stores allegedly make, use, offer for sale, sell, and/or import the accused Infringing Products without license or authorization from Dyson (Compl. ¶3, ¶15). The complaint characterizes the Defendants as part of a network of infringers who use tactics like false names and multiple storefronts to conceal their identities and trade on Dyson's reputation and goodwill (Compl. ¶3, ¶13, ¶17).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint alleges that the accused "Infringing Products" infringe the ornamental designs claimed in the '642 and '415 patents (Compl. ¶3, ¶25). In design patent cases, infringement is determined by the "ordinary observer" test, which asks whether an ordinary observer, giving the level of attention a typical purchaser would, would be deceived into believing the accused product is the same as the patented design.
The complaint does not provide a detailed comparison of the accused product's design to the patented designs. Instead, it makes a general assertion of infringement based on the appearance of the "Infringing Products" (Compl. ¶3). The complaint presents the patented designs through embedded figures from the patents themselves. For example, the complaint displays various views of the D'642 Patent design, including side, top, bottom, front, and rear views, to illustrate the claimed ornamental features (Compl. p. 5). A direct visual analysis of the infringement allegation is not possible without Exhibit 1 to the complaint, which purportedly shows the accused product.
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Factual Question: The central dispute will be a factual visual comparison. Does the overall ornamental appearance of the accused products create substantially the same visual impression as the designs claimed in the '642 and '415 patents in the eyes of an ordinary observer? The outcome will depend on the specific appearance of the products sold by each Defendant.
- Prior Art Limitation: A potential issue in design patent infringement analysis is the scope of the patented design in view of prior art. The question may be raised whether the similarities between the accused product and the patented design are limited to features that were already common in the prior art for hair styling tools.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
Claim construction of specific terms is generally not a central issue in design patent litigation. The claim is defined by the drawings as a whole, and the analysis focuses on the overall visual appearance rather than the interpretation of textual limitations.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes a passing allegation of products that "indirectly" infringe and seeks to enjoin those who "aid" or "abet" infringement (Compl. ¶25; Prayer for Relief ¶1(b)). However, the complaint does not plead specific facts to support the knowledge and intent elements required for claims of induced or contributory infringement against any specific party.
- 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/or importing the accused products without any authorization or license from Dyson (Compl. ¶21).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- Visual Comparison: The core of the case will be a factual determination of visual similarity. Are the accused products sold by the Defendants substantially the same in ornamental design as the '642 and '415 patents from the perspective of an ordinary observer familiar with prior art in the field?
- Enforcement and Identification: A primary practical challenge will concern enforcement. Given that the Defendants are alleged to be a diffuse network of unidentified, foreign-based e-commerce operators, key questions will revolve around Plaintiff's ability to effectively identify, serve, and obtain and enforce a judgment or injunction against these entities.
- Profit Disgorgement: Should infringement be found, a central question for damages will be the calculation of Defendants' "total profit" under 35 U.S.C. § 289, a remedy unique to design patent infringement. Proving the profits attributable to the infringing design for numerous, allegedly anonymous sellers may present a significant evidentiary hurdle for the Plaintiff.