DCT
1:25-cv-12324
Dyson Technology Ltd v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations
Key Events
Amended Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Dyson Technology Limited (United Kingdom)
- Defendant: Jinhes6 (People's Republic of China or other foreign jurisdiction)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Greer, Burns & Crain, Ltd.
- Case Identification: 1:25-cv-12324, N.D. Ill., 10/13/2025
- Venue Allegations: Venue is based on allegations that Defendant operates interactive e-commerce stores that directly target and make sales to consumers in the United States, including Illinois.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s hair styling and hair care apparatus sold online infringes two design patents covering the ornamental appearance of Plaintiff’s products.
- Technical Context: The dispute is in the high-end personal care appliance market, where unique and recognizable ornamental product design is a significant factor in consumer choice and brand identity.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that the defendant operates under one or more seller aliases on e-commerce platforms to conceal its identity and business operations, a common feature in enforcement actions against online sellers based in foreign jurisdictions.
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 |
| 2025-10-13 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Design Patent No. D853,642 - "Hair styling and hair care apparatus"
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 create a novel, non-obvious, and visually distinct appearance for a product that distinguishes it in the marketplace.
- The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific ornamental design for a hair styling apparatus as illustrated in its seven figures (D’642 Patent, p. 1, DESCRIPTION). Key visual features shown in solid lines include an elongated, cylindrical main body, a particular placement of two circular control buttons, a grooved or fluted conical tip, and a textured band near the base where the cord attaches (D’642 Patent, FIG. 1, 3, 6).
- Technical Importance: The complaint alleges that Dyson products have become "iconic, driven by... unique and innovative design," suggesting that the aesthetic appearance is a core component of the product's market value and consumer recognition (Compl. ¶5).
Key Claims at a Glance
- Design patents contain a single claim. The asserted claim is for "the ornamental design for a hair styling and hair care apparatus, as shown and described" (D’642 Patent, Claim).
- There are no independent or dependent claims in the manner of a utility patent.
U.S. Design Patent No. D852,415 - "Hair styling and hair care apparatus"
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: As with the ’642 Patent, the goal is the creation of a novel and ornamental design for a hair care product.
- The Patented Solution: The ’415 Patent claims a distinct ornamental design for a hair styling apparatus, also illustrated in seven figures (D’415 Patent, p. 1, DESCRIPTION). This design features a similar overall cylindrical form but is distinguished by a perforated or mesh-like texture on the end cap and a different textured pattern on the band near the cord connection (D’415 Patent, FIG. 1, 4). The broken lines showing the power cord indicate that the cord itself is not part of the claimed design (D’415 Patent, p. 1, DESCRIPTION).
- Technical Importance: The complaint groups this design with the ’642 Patent design as one of the "Dyson Designs" that are "broadly recognized by consumers" and associated with quality and innovation (Compl. ¶5, ¶8).
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).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The complaint identifies the accused products as "hair styling and hair care apparatus" sold by Defendant, referred to collectively as the "Infringing Products" (Compl. ¶3). The specific appearance of the accused products is depicted in Exhibit 1 to the complaint, which was not available for this analysis.
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges Defendant sells the Infringing Products through interactive e-commerce stores operating under "Seller Aliases" on platforms such as Amazon, eBay, and AliExpress (Compl. ¶12). These stores are allegedly designed to appear as authorized retailers to consumers and often use content and images that make it difficult to distinguish them from legitimate channels (Compl. ¶15). The complaint provides figures from the asserted patents to illustrate the claimed designs, such as a perspective view of the hair styling apparatus shown in FIG. 1 of the D853,642 patent (Compl. p. 4).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint does not contain a claim chart. The infringement standard for design patents is the "ordinary observer" test, which asks whether an ordinary observer, familiar with the prior art, would be deceived into purchasing the accused product believing it to be the patented design. The complaint alleges that Defendant is making, using, selling, or importing products that infringe the ornamental designs claimed in the ’642 and ’415 patents (Compl. ¶24). The core of the infringement allegation is that the visual appearance of the accused products is substantially the same as the designs shown in the patents-in-suit.
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Factual Question: Since the analysis depends on a visual comparison, a primary issue will be whether the accused products are, in fact, substantially the same in overall appearance as the patented designs. This will require a side-by-side comparison of the products and the patent figures.
- Scope Questions: The scope of a design patent is influenced by the prior art. The litigation will likely involve determining the landscape of prior art designs for hair styling tools to assess the novelty of the patented designs and the degree of similarity required to find infringement.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
Claim construction for design patents focuses on the drawings rather than verbal descriptions. However, certain aspects can be subject to interpretation.
- The Term: The depiction of features in solid vs. broken (dashed) lines.
- Context and Importance: In design patent drawings, solid lines depict the claimed ornamental design, while broken lines illustrate environmental structure or boundaries that are not part of the claimed design. This distinction is critical for defining the precise scope of the patent protection. Practitioners may focus on this distinction because it determines which features of the accused product are compared to the patent for infringement analysis.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue that the overall visual impression created by the solid-line features is the dominant aspect of the design, and minor variations in the accused product should not avoid infringement.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The ’415 Patent explicitly states, "The broken lines shown in the drawings illustrate portions of a hair styling and hair care apparatus that form no part of the claimed design" (D’415 Patent, p. 1, DESCRIPTION). This provides clear intrinsic evidence that the claim is limited only to the features shown in solid lines, such as the body, buttons, and end caps, and does not cover the power cord.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes a conclusory allegation of direct and/or indirect infringement (Compl. ¶20, ¶24). It does not, however, plead specific facts to support the knowledge and intent elements required for claims of induced or contributory infringement, such as alleging that Defendant knowingly supplied products to a third party who was a direct infringer.
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant’s infringement was knowing and willful (Compl. ¶20, ¶21). This allegation is factually supported by assertions that Defendant operates under concealed aliases to evade detection and enforcement (Compl. ¶11, ¶17) and that Dyson’s own products are marked in compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 287(a), which provides constructive notice to the public of the patent rights (Compl. p. 4).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central factual question will be one of visual comparison: In the eye of an ordinary observer, are the accused products substantially the same as the ornamental designs claimed in the ’642 and ’415 patents, taking into account the prior art and focusing only on the features depicted in solid lines?
- A key issue for defining infringement will be the scope of the prior art: The ultimate determination of infringement will depend on how novel the patented designs are relative to other hair styling tools on the market before the patents' priority date, which will dictate how close an accused design must be to be considered infringing.
- A significant procedural challenge will be one of enforcement: Given the allegations that the defendant is an unknown entity operating from a foreign jurisdiction using aliases, foundational questions of identifying the defendant, effecting service of process, and enforcing a potential judgment will be critical to the litigation's outcome.