DCT

1:25-cv-11838

Dyson Technology Ltd v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
    • Plaintiff: Dyson Technology Limited (United Kingdom)
    • Defendant: Rising House Store and the Individuals and Entities Operating Rising House Store (Jurisdiction unknown, alleged to be People's Republic of China or other foreign jurisdictions)
    • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Greer, Burns & Crain, Ltd.
  • Case Identification: 1:25-cv-11838, N.D. Ill., 10/03/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendants’ targeting of business activities, including sales and shipping, toward consumers in Illinois through interactive e-commerce stores.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ unauthorized e-commerce sales of a hair styling apparatus infringe two U.S. design patents covering the ornamental appearance of Plaintiff's hair care products.
  • Technical Context: The dispute is in the high-end consumer personal care appliance market, where unique and recognizable ornamental product design is a significant aspect of brand identity and market differentiation.
  • Key Procedural History: The filing is an Amended Complaint against a network of e-commerce operators whose identities are largely unknown to the Plaintiff. The complaint structure suggests a strategy common in anti-counterfeiting litigation targeting diffuse online sellers.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2017-05-30 Earliest Priority Date for '642 and '415 Patents
2019-06-25 U.S. Design Patent No. D852,415 Issues
2019-07-09 U.S. Design Patent No. D853,642 Issues
2025-10-03 Amended Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Design Patent No. D853,642

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D853,642, "Hair Styling and Hair Care Apparatus," issued July 9, 2019.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Design patents protect ornamental appearance rather than functional solutions. The objective is to create a novel, non-obvious, and ornamental design for an article of manufacture, in this case, a hair styling apparatus.
  • The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific ornamental design for a hair styling apparatus as depicted in its figures ('642 Patent, CLAIM). The design features a long, cylindrical main body with a specific configuration of control buttons, a textured grip portion near the base where a cord would attach, and a distinctively shaped head that is tapered with longitudinal fluted or grooved elements, as illustrated in the perspective view of FIG. 1 and the side view of FIG. 3 ('642 Patent, DESCRIPTION).
  • Technical Importance: The design’s significance lies in establishing a unique and recognizable aesthetic for the product, which serves to build brand identity and distinguish the product from competitors in the consumer market (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" ('642 Patent, CLAIM).
  • In a design patent, the claim's elements are not a list of text-based limitations but rather the overall visual impression created by the novel combination of shapes, lines, and surface ornamentation depicted in the patent's drawings (e.g., '642 Patent, FIGS. 1-7).

U.S. Design Patent No. D852,415

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D852,415, "Hair Styling and Hair Care Apparatus," issued June 25, 2019.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: As with the '642 patent, the objective is to protect a novel and ornamental design for a hair styling apparatus.
  • The Patented Solution: The patent claims the ornamental design shown in its figures, which appears to be the handle portion of a hair styling apparatus ('415 Patent, CLAIM). Key features of the design include the cylindrical body, the placement and shape of two circular buttons and a slide switch, and a textured band at the base of the handle, as shown in the perspective views of FIGS. 1 and 2 ('415 Patent, DESCRIPTION). The patent explicitly notes that broken lines in the drawings, such as the power cord, form no part of the claimed design ('415 Patent, DESCRIPTION).
  • Technical Importance: The design provides a distinct visual identity for the handle portion of the apparatus, contributing to the overall branding and consumer recognition of the product line (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" ('415 Patent, CLAIM).
  • The scope of this claim is defined by the overall visual appearance of the solid-line portions of the apparatus as illustrated in the patent's drawings (e.g., '415 Patent, FIGS. 1-7).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused instrumentalities are "hair styling and hair care apparatus" that are sold by Defendants through various e-commerce stores operating under the "Seller Aliases" identified in an attached schedule (Compl. ¶3, 11). These are collectively referred to as the "Infringing Products."

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges that the Infringing Products are "unauthorized and unlicensed" and embody the patented "Dyson Designs" (Compl. ¶3, 8). These products are allegedly sold and offered for sale on online marketplace platforms such as Amazon, eBay, AliExpress, and Walmart to consumers throughout the United States, including Illinois (Compl. ¶12, 14). The complaint alleges Defendants use tactics to conceal their identities and operate through a network of virtual storefronts, appearing to consumers as authorized retailers (Compl. ¶11, 15). The complaint displays figures from the asserted patents as being representative of the designs embodied in the accused products. For example, the complaint includes a table showing FIG. 1 and FIG. 2 from the '642 patent to illustrate one of the infringed "Dyson Designs" (Compl. p. 4).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not contain a claim chart or detailed, element-by-element infringement allegations. Instead, it asserts that Defendants are "making, using, offering for sale, selling, and/or importing" the "Infringing Products that infringe directly and/or indirectly the ornamental designs claimed in the Dyson Designs" (Compl. ¶24). The infringement theory is based on the allegation that the accused products are the "same product" that embodies the designs, creating a visual appearance that is substantially the same as that claimed in the '642 and '415 patents (Compl. ¶20).

The complaint presents figures from the '415 patent, such as the perspective views in FIG. 1 and FIG. 2, to illustrate the second asserted design that is allegedly infringed by the Defendants' products (Compl. p. 6). The legal test for design patent infringement will be whether an "ordinary observer," familiar with the prior art, would be deceived into purchasing the accused product believing it to be the patented design.

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Visual Comparison: A central question for the court will be a visual one: is the overall ornamental appearance of the accused products sold by Defendants substantially the same as the designs claimed in the '642 and '415 patents? The complaint does not contain photographs of the actual accused products, which may create an initial evidentiary hurdle in assessing the infringement allegations directly from the pleading.
    • Scope Questions: The analysis will depend on comparing the accused products to the designs as a whole. The question will be whether any differences between the accused products and the claimed designs are minor and do not alter the overall visual impression conveyed by the patented designs.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

Formal construction of specific text-based terms is uncommon in design patent litigation, as the claim is defined by the drawings. The scope of protection is determined by the overall ornamental design shown in the patent figures.

  • The Term: "ornamental design for a hair styling and hair care apparatus"
  • Context and Importance: The construction of this phrase is synonymous with interpreting the visual content of the patent's drawings. The central task is to understand what visual features constitute the protected design. Practitioners may focus on the distinction between ornamental and purely functional features, as functional aspects of a design are not protected by a design patent.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim in each patent covers the "ornamental design ... as shown and described," which suggests the design should be viewed as a whole, focusing on the overall visual impression rather than on any single feature in isolation ('642 Patent, CLAIM; '415 Patent, CLAIM).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The scope is limited by what is depicted in solid lines in the drawings. For the '415 patent specifically, the specification explicitly disclaims the portions shown in broken lines, stating they "form no part of the claimed design" ('415 Patent, DESCRIPTION). This limits the claimed design to the handle portion itself, excluding the cord. The specific shapes and arrangements of the buttons, vents, and textured surfaces shown in both patents will serve to define the boundaries of the claimed designs.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes a passing allegation of indirect infringement (Compl. ¶20, 24) and requests injunctive relief against "aiding, abetting, [or] contributing to" infringement (Compl. Prayer for Relief ¶1(b)). However, it does not plead specific facts concerning Defendants' knowledge or intent to cause infringement by third parties beyond the general allegations of selling the accused products.
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants' infringement was "knowing[] and willful[]" (Compl. ¶20-21). This allegation is supported by claims that Defendants are part of a coordinated network that uses aliases, regularly registers new storefronts, and communicates about tactics for evading enforcement, suggesting an intent to infringe and conceal that infringement (Compl. ¶11, 17-18).

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

  • A central evidentiary question will be one of visual identity: Can the Plaintiff demonstrate that the products sold by the various anonymous "Seller Aliases" are, in the eye of an ordinary observer, substantially the same as the specific ornamental designs claimed in the '642 and '415 patents?
  • The case will also present a significant procedural challenge of enforcement: A core issue will be the Plaintiff's ability to effectively identify, serve, and enforce a potential judgment against a diffuse and allegedly evasive network of international e-commerce operators who are accused of using concealment tactics.
  • Ultimately, the dispute may turn on a question of design scope: While the accused products are alleged to be the "same" as those embodying the patented designs, the determinative issue will be whether their overall ornamental appearance is legally equivalent to the patented designs, considering the claimed features as a whole and the context of prior art designs in the field.