Dyson Technology Ltd v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations

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 Unknown, Alleged to be People's Republic of China or other foreign jurisdictions)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Greer, Burns & Crain, Ltd.
• Case Identification: 1:26-cv-00748, N.D. Ill., 01/22/2026
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper because Defendants target business activities, including through interactive e-commerce stores, toward consumers in the United States and Illinois.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ unauthorized battery packs infringe a design patent covering the ornamental design of a battery pack.
• Technical Context: The dispute concerns the proprietary ornamental design of accessory components for high-end consumer electronics, specifically battery packs for cordless vacuums.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit. The case is brought against a schedule of unidentified defendants, a common procedure in actions targeting diffuse online sellers.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2013-02-18	U.S. Patent No. D710,299 Priority Date
2014-08-05	U.S. Patent No. D710,299 Issues
2026-01-22	Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. D710,299 - *Battery pack*

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: Design patents do not solve technical problems but protect the novel, non-obvious, and ornamental appearance of an article of manufacture (D'299 Patent, CLAIM). The patent protects the unique aesthetic and visual impression of a battery pack, distinguishing it from other designs in the marketplace.
• The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific ornamental design for a battery pack as depicted in its seven figures (D'299 Patent, DESCRIPTION). The design is characterized by a main rectangular body with rounded side edges, from which a distinct, multi-faceted connector post rises at an angle. The figures illustrate the specific proportions, contours, and surface features that constitute the claimed overall visual appearance (D'299 Patent, FIGs. 1-7).
• Technical Importance: The complaint asserts that Dyson products are known for their "distinctive patented designs" which are broadly recognized by consumers and associated with quality and innovation (Compl. ¶8).

Key Claims at a Glance

• Design patents contain a single claim. The asserted claim is: "The ornamental design for a battery pack, as shown and described." (D'299 Patent, CLAIM).
• The essential visual elements of this claim are defined by the solid lines in the patent's drawings and include:
  • The overall configuration combining a horizontal base with a vertically-oriented connector assembly.
  • The specific profile views showing the shape and angle of the connector assembly relative to the base.
  • The particular arrangement of surface details, lines, and shapes on the housing.
• The patent notes that broken lines in the drawings illustrate environmental structure and are not part of the claimed design (D'299 Patent, DESCRIPTION).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused products are unauthorized and unlicensed battery packs, referred to as the "Infringing Products" (Compl. ¶3).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that Defendants operate e-commerce stores under various "Seller Aliases" on platforms such as Amazon, eBay, Temu, and Walmart, targeting consumers in the United States (Compl. ¶¶12, 14).
• These stores are allegedly designed to appear as authorized retailers to "unknowing consumers" and sell the Infringing Products (Compl. ¶¶3, 15). The complaint includes a table showing figures of the patented design, which it calls the "Dyson Design" (Compl. ¶8, p. 4). A perspective view of this design is shown in the complaint as FIG. 1 (Compl. p. 4).
• The complaint alleges these products are sold and imported into the United States for subsequent sale or use without authorization from Dyson (Compl. ¶21).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The test for design patent infringement is whether an "ordinary observer," familiar with the prior art designs, would be deceived into believing the accused design is the same as the patented design. The complaint alleges infringement but does not provide images of the accused products for a side-by-side comparison.

D'299 Patent Infringement Allegations

Ornamental Feature (from D'299 Patent Figures)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
The overall ornamental design for a battery pack, as shown and described in the patent's figures.	Defendants are making, using, offering for sale, selling, and/or importing Infringing Products that directly and/or indirectly infringe the ornamental design.	¶¶3, 25	CLAIM; FIGs. 1-7

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Evidentiary Question: The central question will be factual and evidentiary: what is the actual appearance of the "Infringing Products"? The complaint does not contain photographs or drawings of the accused products, which will be necessary to apply the ordinary observer test. The analysis will depend on comparing the accused products to the design claimed in the '299 Patent.
  • Scope Questions: The infringement analysis will turn on whether the accused designs are substantially the same as the patented design. The scope of the '299 Patent's protection, and thus the breadth of this comparison, may be informed by the prior art for battery pack designs that existed before the patent's priority date.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

Claim construction for a design patent focuses on the visual impression created by the drawings as a whole, rather than on interpreting specific text.

• The Term: "The ornamental design for a battery pack"
• Context and Importance: The scope of this "term" is defined by the patent's drawings. The key question for the court is what specific visual elements are protected. Practitioners may focus on distinguishing the purely ornamental aspects from any potentially functional features of the design, as functional elements are not protected by a design patent.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim covers the overall visual impression of the design shown in the figures, not just isolated features. An interpretation could argue that any battery pack creating the same overall aesthetic impression infringes, even with minor differences.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The court's interpretation is strictly limited to what is shown in the drawings. The patent explicitly disclaims the material shown in broken lines, stating it is "for the purpose of illustrating environmental structure and form[s] no part of the claimed design" (D'299 Patent, DESCRIPTION). Any interpretation must exclude these elements and cannot extend to configurations not depicted. The specific angles, curves, and proportions shown in the seven figures define the precise boundaries of the claimed design.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes a conclusory allegation of direct and/or indirect infringement (Compl. ¶25) and requests an injunction against "aiding, abetting, contributing to, or otherwise assisting anyone" in infringing (Prayer for Relief ¶1(b)). However, the complaint's factual allegations focus on Defendants' own acts of making, using, selling, and importing, which constitute direct infringement. The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the specific knowledge or intent required for a claim of indirect infringement.
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants' infringement was willful (Compl. ¶22). The basis for this allegation appears to be that Defendants are part of a network of e-commerce operators who knowingly engage in infringing conduct and use tactics to conceal their identities and evade enforcement (Compl. ¶¶17, 19, 21).

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

1. The "Ordinary Observer" Test: A core issue will be a visual and factual comparison. Once the accused products are identified, the central question will be whether an ordinary observer would be deceived into purchasing them believing they were Dyson's patented design, considering the full landscape of prior art battery pack designs.
2. Defendant Identification and Jurisdiction: A primary practical hurdle for the Plaintiff will be effectuating service and establishing personal jurisdiction over the unnamed foreign entities listed in Schedule A. The viability of the case depends on successfully piercing the anonymity of the alleged online storefronts.
3. Damages and Scope of Infringing Network: Should liability be found, a key question will be determining the appropriate remedy. This includes establishing the extent of Defendants' sales and profits, which may be complicated by the alleged use of offshore accounts and tactics to evade detection (Compl. ¶20).