DCT

1:25-cv-12610

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” (allegedly People's Republic of China or other foreign jurisdictions)
    • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Greer, Burns & Crain, Ltd.
  • Case Identification: 1:25-cv-12610, N.D. Ill., 10/15/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is based on allegations that Defendants target sales to U.S. consumers, including residents of Illinois, through interactive e-commerce websites.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that numerous unidentified e-commerce operators are selling hair styling apparatus that infringes two of its U.S. design patents.
  • Technical Context: This dispute concerns the ornamental design of premium hair care appliances, a consumer market where distinctive product appearance is a significant component of brand identity and value.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint is framed as part of a broader enforcement effort against numerous, difficult-to-identify online sellers who allegedly use multiple aliases and operate from jurisdictions with lax intellectual property enforcement.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2017-05-30 Patent Priority Date ('642 and '415 Patents)
2019-06-25 U.S. Patent No. D852,415 Issues
2019-07-09 U.S. Patent No. D853,642 Issues
2025-10-15 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. D853,642 - "Hair Styling and Hair Care Apparatus"

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: In the market for consumer appliances, establishing a unique and recognizable product appearance is a key challenge for brand differentiation (Compl. ¶5). Design patents protect the novel, non-obvious, and ornamental appearance of an article of manufacture.
  • The Patented Solution: The patent claims a specific ornamental design for a hair styling apparatus. The design's overall visual impression is defined by the solid lines in its figures, which depict a wand-like apparatus with a smooth, cylindrical main body, a specific configuration of two circular buttons, a textured band near the power cord, and a distinctively grooved, tapered tip ('642 Patent, FIG. 1, 3).
  • Technical Importance: A distinctive ornamental design can serve as a strong source identifier, associating the product's appearance with the quality and innovation expected from the brand (Compl. ¶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).
  • The key ornamental features that create the overall visual impression include:
    • A slender, cylindrical body.
    • A specific placement and arrangement of controls on the body.
    • A textured section at the base of the apparatus.
    • A grooved and tapered tip section.

U.S. Patent No. D852,415 - "Hair Styling and Hair Care Apparatus"

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: As with the ’642 Patent, the objective is to protect a unique and ornamental product appearance in a competitive consumer market (Compl. ¶5).
  • The Patented Solution: The ’415 Patent claims a design that is substantially similar in overall form to the design in the ’642 Patent but is distinguished by its end-cap ('415 Patent, FIG. 1, 4). Instead of a grooved tip, this design features a flat, circular end cap with a perforated surface pattern. The main body, button layout, and textured base appear consistent with the ’642 Patent design.
  • Technical Importance: By securing patents on distinct but related ornamental designs, a patent holder may seek to protect a family of products or variations of a core design theme from imitation (Compl. ¶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" ('415 Patent, Claim).
  • The key ornamental features that create the overall visual impression include:
    • A slender, cylindrical body.
    • A specific placement and arrangement of controls on the body.
    • A textured section at the base of the apparatus.
    • A flat, circular end cap with a perforated pattern.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused instrumentalities are "hair styling and hair care apparatus" sold by Defendants and referred to in the complaint as the "Infringing Products" (Compl. ¶3).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges that Defendants operate e-commerce stores on platforms including Amazon, eBay, AliExpress, and Walmart, through which they market and sell the accused products to consumers in the United States (Compl. ¶12). The complaint asserts these are "unauthorized and unlicensed" products sold by entities that conceal their identities through multiple "Seller Aliases" (Compl. ¶3). The complaint further alleges that the e-commerce stores are designed to appear as authorized retailers to "unknowing consumers" (Compl. ¶15).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not contain or reference a claim chart. Instead, it makes a general allegation that the ornamental designs of the accused "Infringing Products" are the same as the designs claimed in the patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶3, ¶25). The legal standard for design patent infringement is the "ordinary observer" test, which asks whether an ordinary observer, familiar with the prior art designs, would be deceived into purchasing the accused product believing it to be the patented design.

The complaint includes images from the patents to illustrate the asserted "Dyson Designs" (Compl. pp. 4-7). For instance, a perspective view from the '642 Patent shows the overall claimed design, including its grooved tip (Compl. p. 4, FIG. 1). Similarly, a perspective view from the '415 Patent shows the alternative design with its distinct perforated end cap (Compl. p. 6, FIG. 1). The core of the infringement allegation is that the accused products create the same overall visual impression as these patented designs.

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A central question for the court will be whether the accused products are "substantially the same" in appearance as the patented designs. The analysis will focus on the overall visual effect of the products, where minor differences may not defeat an infringement claim if the aesthetic whole is appropriated.
    • Technical Questions: The dispositive analysis will require a side-by-side visual comparison of the actual accused products with the drawings in the '642 and '415 patents. The court will assess whether the combination of claimed ornamental features—body shape, button placement, texturing, and tip/cap design—is replicated in the accused products to a degree that would confuse an ordinary observer.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In design patent litigation, claim construction does not focus on textual terms but on the overall visual scope of the design as depicted in the patent's drawings. The claim is understood to be for the design as a whole.

  • The "Term": The overall ornamental design for a hair styling and hair care apparatus as depicted in the solid-line drawings of the '642 and '415 patents.
  • Context and Importance: The critical issue is the scope of the visual impression protected by each patent. The court's interpretation will determine whether the design is limited to the exact article shown or covers a broader range of similarly appearing products. This interpretation will define the boundaries for the "ordinary observer" infringement test.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue that the claim covers any hair styling tool that produces the same overall visual impression of a sleek, cylindrical wand with the characteristic control layout and tip/cap features, even if there are minor variations in proportion or surface detail not shown in the drawings.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue that the claim is precisely limited to the specific combination of ornamental features as illustrated. For instance, the '415 patent explicitly disclaims matter shown in broken lines, thereby limiting the claim to the solid-line portions ('415 Patent, Description). Any significant deviation in the shape, placement, or appearance of these specific solid-line features could be argued to place an accused product outside the claim's scope.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes a passing reference to indirect infringement and seeks to enjoin "aiding, abetting, contributing to, or otherwise assisting" infringement (Compl. ¶25; Prayer ¶1(b)). However, the complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of indirect infringement, as it does not plead specific facts showing that Defendants knowingly induced or contributed to acts of infringement by third parties.
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants' infringement was "knowing[] and willful[]" (Compl. ¶21, ¶22). The stated basis for this allegation is that Defendants acted "without any authorization or license from Dyson" to sell a product that infringes the patents (Compl. ¶21).

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

  • Procedural Efficacy: A primary issue will be one of identification and enforcement. Given the allegations that Defendants are numerous, operate under aliases, and reside in foreign jurisdictions, a key challenge for the Plaintiff will be effectively identifying the responsible parties and securing compliance with any judicial orders.
  • Substantive Infringement: The central legal question will be one of visual identity. Does a side-by-side comparison of the accused products and the patented designs reveal that they are substantially the same from the perspective of an ordinary observer? The case will likely turn on the court's application of this test to the specific ornamental features of the products in question.