DCT

1:25-cv-12496

Dyson Technology Ltd v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
    • Plaintiff: Dyson Technology Limited (United Kingdom)
    • Defendant: The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule “A,” (Jurisdictions alleged to be People's Republic of China or other foreign jurisdictions)
    • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Greer, Burns & Crain, Ltd.
  • Case Identification: 1:25-cv-12496, N.D. Ill., 10/13/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is based on allegations that Defendants operate interactive e-commerce stores that target consumers in the United States, including Illinois, offer shipping to Illinois, and accept payment in U.S. currency.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that numerous unnamed e-commerce operators are selling hair styling apparatus that infringe two of its U.S. design patents.
  • Technical Context: The dispute involves the ornamental appearance of high-end hair care appliances, a consumer market where distinctive product design is a significant commercial differentiator.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, licensing history, or administrative proceedings related to the patents-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2017-05-30 Earliest Priority Date for '642 and '415 Patents
2019-06-25 U.S. Patent No. D852,415 Issued
2019-07-09 U.S. 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, issued July 9, 2019 (’642 Patent)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Design patents protect the ornamental, non-functional appearance of an article of manufacture rather than solving a technical problem. The patent does not describe a technical problem or solution (D853642 Patent).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific ornamental design for a hair styling apparatus. The claimed design consists of an elongated, cylindrical body with particular surface controls, which transitions into a distinct styling head featuring a series of longitudinal flutes or grooves around its circumference ('642 Patent, FIGs. 1, 3, 6). The drawings use broken lines to disclaim the power cord, indicating it is not part of the protected design ('642 Patent, DESCRIPTION).
  • Technical Importance: The design provides a unique visual identity for the product in the competitive consumer electronics and personal care market (Compl. ¶¶ 5, 8).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The patent asserts a single claim: "The ornamental design for a hair styling and hair care apparatus, as shown and described" ('642 Patent, Claim). This claim covers the visual appearance of the apparatus as depicted in the patent's seven figures.

U.S. Design Patent No. D852,415, Hair Styling and Hair Care Apparatus, issued June 25, 2019 (’415 Patent)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: As a design patent, the '415 Patent protects ornamental appearance, not functional utility (D852415 Patent).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent claims the ornamental design for what appears to be the main body or handle of a hair styling apparatus. Key features of the design include a smooth, cylindrical form, a specific arrangement of two circular buttons on the body, and a textured, cross-hatched grip section at the base of the handle ('415 Patent, FIGs. 1, 3, 6). The power cord is depicted in broken lines and is not part of the claimed design ('415 Patent, DESCRIPTION). This patent appears to cover the handle, which could be used with various attachments, whereas the '642 Patent covers an integrated unit with a specific head.
  • Technical Importance: The design of the handle creates a distinct aesthetic and ergonomic identity, which is a key branding element for consumer appliances (Compl. ¶¶ 5, 8).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The patent asserts a single claim: "The ornamental design for a hair styling and hair care apparatus, as shown and described" ('415 Patent, Claim). The scope is defined by the seven figures in the patent.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

"Infringing Products" are defined as "unauthorized and unlicensed" "hair styling and hair care apparatus" sold by the Defendants (Compl. ¶3).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges Defendants operate "fully interactive, e-commerce stores" under various "Seller Aliases" on platforms such as Amazon, eBay, and AliExpress to sell the accused products to consumers in the United States, including Illinois (Compl. ¶¶ 2, 12). These stores are allegedly designed to appear as if they are "authorized online retailers, outlet stores, or wholesalers," making it difficult for consumers to distinguish them from legitimate channels (Compl. ¶15). The core of the allegation is that these products copy the patented ornamental designs, trading on the goodwill and reputation associated with Dyson's products (Compl. ¶3).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The standard for infringement of a design patent 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 is the patented design. The complaint does not include a claim chart, as is typical for design patent cases, but instead relies on a holistic comparison.

'642 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the accused products sold by Defendants infringe the ornamental design claimed in the '642 Patent (Compl. ¶25). The infringement theory rests on the allegation that the overall visual appearance of the accused products is substantially the same as the design depicted in the patent's figures. The complaint provides a representative image from the patent, showing a perspective view of the wand-style apparatus with its distinctive fluted head. (Compl. ¶8, p. 4, FIG. 1).

'415 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint asserts that the accused products also infringe the '415 Patent, which covers the ornamental design of the apparatus handle (Compl. ¶¶ 3, 25). The basis for this allegation is that the handles of the accused products are visually indistinguishable from the patented design. The complaint includes a perspective view of the patented handle design, highlighting its cylindrical body, button placement, and textured lower grip. (Compl. ¶8, p. 6, FIG. 1).

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: A central question will be whether the overall visual impression of the accused products is substantially the same as the patented designs. The analysis will focus on the designs as a whole, rather than on a comparison of discrete features.
  • Technical Questions: The primary question is not technical but visual: giving the attention a typical purchaser would, would an ordinary observer confuse the accused product with the patented design? Any potential defense would likely focus on identifying visual differences between the accused products and the drawings of the '642 and '415 Patents that are significant enough to alter the overall appearance and avoid deception.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In design patent litigation, formal claim construction of specific terms is less common than in utility patent cases. The "claim" is understood to be the design itself, as shown in the drawings.

  • The Term: "ornamental design for a hair styling and hair care apparatus, as shown and described"
  • Context and Importance: The entire infringement analysis hinges on the scope of the visual impression created by the patent figures. The court's interpretation of what constitutes the "ornamental design" as a whole will be dispositive. Practitioners may focus on which specific visual elements are most prominent in creating the overall aesthetic impression.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party may argue that the court should focus on the overall shape, configuration, and impression of the apparatus, suggesting that minor variations in surface ornamentation or button shape on an accused product do not change the fundamental identity of the design.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party may contend that specific features shown in solid lines—such as the precise curvature, the proportions of the handle to the head, the texture of the grip, and the shape of the flutes—are critical to the patented design. The express disclaimer of the power cord via broken lines ('642 Patent, DESCRIPTION) demonstrates a clear intent to define the boundaries of the claimed design, which could be used to argue that the elements shown in solid lines must be strictly interpreted.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint includes a general allegation of direct and/or indirect infringement (Compl. ¶25) and the prayer for relief requests an injunction against "aiding, abetting, contributing to, or otherwise assisting anyone" in infringing (Prayer for Relief ¶1(b)). However, the complaint does not allege specific facts, such as providing instructions to third parties or selling a component with knowledge of its infringing use, that would support a standalone claim for induced or contributory infringement.

Willful Infringement

The complaint explicitly alleges that Defendants' infringement was willful (Compl. ¶22). The basis for this allegation is the assertion that Defendants acted "knowingly and willfully" in offering for sale, selling, and importing products that infringe the Dyson designs without authorization (Compl. ¶21).

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

  • A core issue will be one of visual comparison: Applying the "ordinary observer" test, is the overall ornamental appearance of the accused products sold by the various defendants substantially the same as the designs claimed in the '642 and '415 Patents, such that a consumer would be deceived?
  • A second key issue will be procedural and jurisdictional: Given that the defendants are defined as a class of unknown entities operating through online aliases and allegedly based in foreign jurisdictions with "lax intellectual property enforcement systems" (Compl. ¶10), the case may present significant challenges related to identifying the responsible parties, establishing personal jurisdiction, and conducting discovery to obtain evidence of their specific sales and product designs.