DCT
1:25-cv-12212
Dyson Technology Ltd v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Dyson Technology Limited (United Kingdom)
- Defendant: MAX STORE and the Individuals and Entities Operating MAX STORE (People's Republic of China or other foreign jurisdictions)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Greer, Burns & Crain, Ltd.
- Case Identification: 1:25-cv-12212, N.D. Ill., 10/07/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendants operate interactive e-commerce stores that target and make sales to consumers in the United States, including residents of Illinois.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ hair styling and hair care apparatus infringes two U.S. design patents covering the ornamental appearance of a hair styling device.
- Technical Context: The dispute is in the high-end personal hair care appliance market, where unique and recognizable product design is a significant factor in consumer purchasing decisions and brand identity.
- Key Procedural History: This action targets numerous e-commerce store operators who allegedly operate under various seller aliases to conceal their identities and locations. The complaint alleges that the defendants are likely based in jurisdictions with lax intellectual property enforcement.
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 |
| 2025-10-07 | Amended Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. D853,642 - “Hair Styling and Hair Care Apparatus” (Issued July 9, 2019)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: Design patents protect the ornamental appearance of an article of manufacture rather than its utilitarian features. The objective is to secure rights to a novel and non-obvious aesthetic design that distinguishes a product in the marketplace (Compl. ¶5).
- The Patented Solution: The patent claims the ornamental design for a hair styling apparatus, depicted as a wand-like device (D'642 Patent, Figs. 1-7). Key visual features of the design include an elongated cylindrical main body, a tapered head attachment with grooved or fluted surfaces, a textured grip section near the base, and specific placement of user controls on the body (Compl. pp. 4-5).
- Technical Importance: The complaint asserts that Dyson products have become "iconic" and "instantly recognizable" due to their "unique and innovative design," which symbolizes high quality to consumers (Compl. ¶5).
Key Claims at a Glance
- Design patents contain a single claim, which is for the ornamental design as shown in the patent's drawings. The asserted claim is: "The ornamental design for a hair styling and hair care apparatus, as shown and described" (D'642 Patent, Claim).
- The asserted design encompasses the overall visual appearance of the apparatus, including its shape, configuration, and surface ornamentation (D'642 Patent, Figs. 1-7).
U.S. 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 the novel ornamental appearance of a hair styling product (Compl. ¶5).
- The Patented Solution: This patent also claims the ornamental design for a hair styling apparatus. The drawings focus on the main body or handle of the device, featuring a similar cylindrical shape, control button layout, and a textured grip section at the base where the power cord attaches (D'415 Patent, Figs. 1-7). Unlike the design in the ’642 Patent, the figures in this patent do not include the tapered head attachment, thereby claiming the design of the handle portion as a distinct ornamental feature (Compl. pp. 6-7).
- Technical Importance: The distinctive design of the main body of the apparatus is a core component of the product's overall aesthetic and brand recognition (Compl. ¶5).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The single asserted claim is for: "The ornamental design for a hair styling and hair care apparatus, as shown and described" (D'415 Patent, Claim).
- The claimed design covers the ornamental features of the handle portion of the apparatus, independent of any specific head attachment (D'415 Patent, Figs. 1-7).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused products are identified as "hair styling and hair care apparatus" (the "Infringing Products") that are sold by Defendants through e-commerce stores operating under various "Seller Aliases" (Compl. ¶3).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint alleges Defendants sell the Infringing Products on online marketplace platforms such as Amazon, eBay, and AliExpress (Compl. ¶12). It further alleges that Defendants design their e-commerce stores to appear as authorized retailers to "unknowing consumers," accepting payment through U.S. dollar-denominated methods and shipping to the United States, including Illinois (Compl. ¶2, ¶15). The complaint states that the accused products are shown in an "Exhibit 1," but this exhibit was not included in the filed document, precluding a direct visual inspection of the accused instrumentality based on the complaint itself (Compl. ¶3).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint alleges that the accused "Infringing Products" are the "same product that infringes directly and/or indirectly the Dyson Designs" (Compl. ¶20, ¶24). For design patents, infringement is determined by the "ordinary observer" test, which asks whether an ordinary observer would believe the accused design is the same as the patented design. The complaint does not contain a detailed, element-by-element comparison. The tables below outline the key ornamental features of the patented designs that are implicitly at issue. The complaint provides several figures from the asserted patents to illustrate the claimed designs, such as the perspective view of the '642 patent's design in Figure 1 (Compl. p. 4).
D853,642 Infringement Allegations
| Key Ornamental Feature (from Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| The overall visual configuration of a wand-like hair styling apparatus | The complaint alleges that the accused products embody the patented ornamental designs claimed in the Dyson Designs. | ¶24 | Fig. 1 |
| An elongated, cylindrical main body with specific user control placement | The complaint alleges that the accused products embody the patented ornamental designs claimed in the Dyson Designs. | ¶24 | Fig. 6 |
| A distinct tapered head attachment with fluted surface ornamentation | The complaint alleges that the accused products embody the patented ornamental designs claimed in the Dyson Designs. | ¶24 | Fig. 3 |
| A textured grip portion located at the base of the apparatus | The complaint alleges that the accused products embody the patented ornamental designs claimed in the Dyson Designs. | ¶24 | Fig. 7 |
D852,415 Infringement Allegations
| Key Ornamental Feature (from Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| The overall visual configuration of the handle portion of a hair styling apparatus | The complaint alleges that the accused products embody the patented ornamental designs claimed in the Dyson Designs. | ¶24 | Fig. 1 |
| An elongated, cylindrical body with a specific layout of user controls | The complaint alleges that the accused products embody the patented ornamental designs claimed in the Dyson Designs. | ¶24 | Fig. 6 |
| A textured grip pattern at the base of the handle where the power cord attaches | The complaint alleges that the accused products embody the patented ornamental designs claimed in the Dyson Designs. | ¶24 | Fig. 2 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central issue in design patent infringement analysis is the scope of the claimed design from the perspective of an ordinary observer. The analysis will question whether the overall visual impression of the accused products is substantially the same as that of the patented designs, considering any differences in shape, configuration, or surface ornamentation.
- Evidentiary Questions: The complaint makes a general allegation that the accused products infringe but does not provide images of them. A primary question for the court will be what the accused products actually look like. The infringement determination will depend entirely on a side-by-side visual comparison between the patent figures and the accused products once they are identified and presented as evidence.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of key claim terms. In design patent litigation, claim construction is typically not focused on textual terms but on the scope of the design as a whole, as depicted in the patent's drawings. The title of the patents, "Hair styling and hair care apparatus," provides context for the article of manufacture but is unlikely to be a point of significant dispute.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint includes a conclusory allegation that Defendants "indirectly" infringe the Dyson Designs (Compl. ¶24). The prayer for relief also seeks to enjoin aiding and abetting of infringement (Prayer for Relief ¶1(b)). However, the complaint does not plead specific facts to support the knowledge and intent elements required for a standalone claim of induced or contributory infringement.
- Willful Infringement: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ infringement was "knowing[] and willfully" committed (Compl. ¶20, ¶21). The complaint supports this allegation by asserting that Defendants operate through a network of concealed online stores and use tactics to evade detection and enforcement, which may suggest egregious conduct (Compl. ¶11, ¶16-18).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of visual comparison: once the accused products are identified, the central question for the court 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. This will require a holistic comparison of the overall visual effect of the designs.
- A significant challenge will be procedural and jurisdictional: given that the Defendants are alleged to be anonymous entities operating from foreign jurisdictions, key questions will revolve around Plaintiff's ability to effectively identify, serve, and enforce any potential injunction or monetary judgment against a diffuse and intentionally concealed network of online sellers.