DCT

1:25-cv-14679

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” (Jurisdiction(s) unknown, alleged to operate from China or other foreign jurisdictions)
    • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Greer, Burns & Crain, Ltd.
  • Case Identification: 1:25-cv-14679, N.D. Ill., 12/03/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is based on allegations that Defendants operate interactive e-commerce stores that target and sell products to consumers in Illinois.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that numerous unidentified e-commerce store operators are selling hair styling apparatus that infringe two of its U.S. design patents.
  • Technical Context: The dispute is in the high-end personal care appliance market, where distinctive product design is a significant driver of brand recognition and commercial value.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint frames this action as part of a broader enforcement effort against a network of online sellers who allegedly use aliases and offshore accounts to evade intellectual property enforcement. The defendants are unidentified, a common feature in anti-counterfeiting litigation targeting online marketplaces.

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 Issues
2019-07-09 U.S. Patent No. D853,642 Issues
2025-12-03 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. D853,642 - "Hair styling and hair care apparatus"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. D853,642, “Hair styling and hair care apparatus,” issued July 9, 2019 (the “'642 Patent”).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent does not address a technical problem, as is typical for design patents. Instead, it seeks to protect a unique ornamental appearance for a product in a crowded market.
  • The Patented Solution: The patent protects the specific, non-functional visual characteristics of a hair styling apparatus. The design consists of a main cylindrical body with control buttons, a textured grip section near the power cord, and a distinctively shaped head or nozzle with fluted or grooved features. The overall impression is one of a sleek, modern, and minimalist aesthetic. (’642 Patent, Figs. 1-7).
  • Technical Importance: In the consumer appliance field, a distinctive and recognizable ornamental design can serve as a key brand identifier and a source of competitive advantage. (Compl. ¶5, ¶8).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The single claim asserted is for "the ornamental design for a hair styling and hair care apparatus, as shown and described." (’642 Patent, Claim).
  • The essential visual elements of this design include:
    • An elongated, primarily cylindrical body.
    • A tapered nozzle end with external longitudinal grooves.
    • A set of small, circular buttons arranged on the main body.
    • A textured, possibly perforated or knurled, band at the base of the body where the cord attaches.
    • A distinct transition from the main body to the cord assembly.

U.S. Patent No. D852,415 - "Hair styling and hair care apparatus"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. D852,415, “Hair styling and hair care apparatus,” issued June 25, 2019 (the “'415 Patent”).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Similar to the ’642 Patent, this patent protects an ornamental design rather than solving a technical problem.
  • The Patented Solution: The ’415 Patent claims the ornamental design for a hair styling apparatus that is visually similar to the design in the ’642 Patent but features a different head/nozzle. This design includes the same core cylindrical body, button layout, and textured base, but the head is a perforated, cap-like structure, suggesting an airflow or dryer function. (’415 Patent, Figs. 1-7).
  • Technical Importance: This patent, alongside the ’642 Patent, protects a family of related product designs, allowing the owner to protect a consistent design language across different product variations or attachments. (Compl. ¶8).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The single claim asserted is for "the ornamental design for a hair styling and hair care apparatus, as shown and described." (’415 Patent, Claim).
  • The essential visual elements of this design include:
    • An elongated, primarily cylindrical body.
    • A head assembly with a flat, perforated end cap.
    • A set of small, circular buttons arranged on the main body.
    • A textured, perforated or knurled, band at the base of the body where the cord attaches.
    • A distinct transition from the main body to the cord assembly.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The "Infringing Products" are identified as "hair styling and hair care apparatus" sold by the Defendants through various e-commerce stores operating under the "Seller Aliases" listed in the complaint's (unprovided) Schedule A. (Compl. ¶3). The complaint refers to an image of the product in Exhibit 1, which is not included in the provided document. (Compl. ¶3).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges that Defendants operate a network of online stores on platforms like Amazon, eBay, and Walmart to sell unauthorized products that embody the patented designs. (Compl. ¶12). These stores are designed to appear as authorized retailers to "unknowing consumers." (Compl. ¶15). The complaint alleges these actions are part of a widespread trade in counterfeit and pirated goods, often originating from China. (Compl. ¶12). The complaint presents a table showing figures from the '642 Patent, which serves to illustrate the design at issue. (Compl. p. 4).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide a claim chart or a detailed element-by-element comparison. It asserts that the "Infringing Products" infringe the "Dyson Designs" without specifying which features of the accused products correspond to the claimed designs. (Compl. ¶3, ¶25). 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 Defendants are selling products that are the "same unauthorized and unlicensed product" that infringes the designs. (Compl. ¶3). Another table in the complaint shows various views from the '415 Patent's figures to depict the second asserted design. (Compl. p. 6).

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Factual Question: The primary question will be a factual comparison between the accused products (as shown in the unprovided Exhibit 1 and as sold by Defendants) and the designs claimed in the ’642 and ’415 Patents.
    • Scope Question: A potential issue is whether the overall visual impression of the accused products is "substantially the same" as the patented designs. This will involve comparing the shape, configuration, and surface ornamentation of the products to the patent figures from the perspective of an ordinary observer.
    • Evidentiary Question: A threshold challenge for the Plaintiff will be identifying the specific products sold by each anonymous defendant and presenting evidence that those products are, in fact, infringing.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

Claim construction for design patents is typically straightforward, as the claim is defined by the drawings rather than words. The single claim in each patent is for "the ornamental design for a hair styling and hair care apparatus, as shown and described." (D’642 Patent, Claim; D’415 Patent, Claim).

There are no specific terms in this claim that are likely to require judicial construction. The scope of the claim is determined by the overall visual appearance of the design depicted in the patent figures. The central dispute will not be about the meaning of a term but about the application of the ordinary observer test to the accused products.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes passing references to products that "indirectly" infringe and seeks to enjoin Defendants from "aiding, abetting, [or] contributing to" infringement. (Compl. ¶25; Prayer for Relief ¶1(b)). However, it does not plead specific facts to support the knowledge and intent elements required for a claim of induced infringement or contributory infringement.
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants' infringement "was willful." (Compl. ¶22). The factual basis for this allegation appears to be the assertion that Defendants operate as a network of infringers who knowingly sell unauthorized products while using tactics like false names and offshore accounts to conceal their identities and evade enforcement. (Compl. ¶13, ¶17, ¶21).

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

This case appears to be a targeted enforcement action against a network of online sellers rather than a complex technical patent dispute. The central questions for the court will likely be:

  1. A Procedural Question of Enforcement: Can the Plaintiff successfully identify the anonymous Defendants, establish personal jurisdiction, and effectively enforce a judgment against entities allegedly operating from foreign jurisdictions with the intent to evade detection?
  2. An Infringement Question of Visual Similarity: Assuming the Defendants and their products are identified, is the overall ornamental appearance of the accused hair styling products substantially the same as the designs claimed in the ’642 and ’415 Patents in the eyes of an ordinary observer?