1:26-cv-00885
Dyson Technology Ltd v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Dyson Technology Limited (United Kingdom)
- Defendant: FirstPower.Direct (People's Republic of China or other foreign jurisdiction, on information and belief)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Greer, Burns & Crain, Ltd.
- Case Identification: 1:26-cv-00885, N.D. Ill., 01/27/2026
- Venue Allegations: Venue is based on Defendant’s operation of an interactive e-commerce store that allegedly targets and makes sales to consumers in Illinois.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s sale of battery packs via an online storefront infringes a U.S. design patent covering the ornamental design of a battery pack.
- Technical Context: The dispute concerns the proprietary ornamental design of battery packs, a key component for high-end consumer electronics such as cordless vacuums.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint does not reference any prior litigation, licensing history, or administrative proceedings related to the patent-in-suit.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2013-02-18 | ’299 Patent Priority Date |
| 2014-08-05 | ’299 Patent Issue Date |
| 2026-01-27 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Design Patent No. D710,299 - *"Battery Pack"*
- Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D710,299, "Battery Pack," issued August 5, 2014. (Compl. ¶9).
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: Design patents do not solve a technical problem in the manner of utility patents; rather, they protect a product's unique, non-functional, ornamental appearance. The objective is to create a novel and distinctive visual design for an article of manufacture.
- The Patented Solution: The D710299 patent claims the specific ornamental design for a battery pack. The design features a main rectangular body with rounded ends, from which a central, multi-faceted tower structure rises at a slight angle. The tower includes various geometric cutouts, ridges, and surfaces, creating a complex and visually distinct connector portion. The overall impression is that of a functional, engineered component with a specific aesthetic. (’299 Patent, Figs. 1-7).
- Technical Importance: In the consumer electronics market, distinctive product and component design serves as a key brand differentiator and a signifier of authenticity and quality. (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." (’299 Patent, "CLAIM").
- The scope of this claim is defined by the seven figures provided in the patent, which depict the design from perspective, front, rear, side, top, and bottom views. (Compl. pp. 4-7).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused products are battery packs ("Infringing Products") sold by Defendant through an e-commerce store operating under the seller alias "FirstPower.Direct." (Compl. ¶3, ¶12).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint alleges Defendant operates a "fully interactive, e-commerce store" on platforms such as Amazon, eBay, Temu, and Walmart to offer for sale, sell, and import the Infringing Products to consumers in the United States, including Illinois. (Compl. ¶12, ¶14). The complaint characterizes the Defendant as one of many e-commerce operators who trade on Dyson's reputation by selling unauthorized products that allegedly copy Dyson's patented designs. (Compl. ¶3). The complaint alleges these online stores are designed to appear sophisticated, making it difficult for consumers to distinguish them from authorized retailers. (Compl. ¶15).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The legal standard for design patent infringement 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's infringement theory is based on a direct visual comparison between the accused battery packs and the design claimed in the ’299 Patent.
The complaint alleges that Defendant is "making, using, offering for sale, selling, and/or importing" products that "infringe directly and/or indirectly the ornamental design claimed in the Dyson Design." (Compl. ¶24). To illustrate the patented design, the complaint provides a table containing multiple figures from the ’299 patent. (Compl. pp. 4-7). For example, the complaint includes a perspective view of the patented design labeled as FIG. 1, showing the overall shape and configuration of the battery pack. (Compl. p. 4). The complaint asserts that the products sold by Defendant are the "same unauthorized and unlicensed product" that infringes this design. (Compl. ¶3).
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Visual Comparison: The central question for the court will be a visual one: Does the accused battery pack's design appear substantially the same as the patented design in the eye of an ordinary observer? The analysis will involve comparing the overall visual impression of the two designs, not a component-by-component breakdown.
- Scope Questions: A potential issue may arise concerning the distinction between functional and ornamental features. A court would have to determine which aspects of the depicted design are dictated by function (and thus not protected) versus which are ornamental. The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of this specific element.
V. Other Allegations
Willful Infringement
The complaint alleges that Defendant's infringement was "knowing[] and willful[]," but does not plead specific facts regarding pre-suit knowledge of the ’299 Patent. (Compl. ¶20, ¶21). The allegation of willfulness appears to be based on the general assertion that Defendant trades upon Dyson's reputation and goodwill. (Compl. ¶3).
VI. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of visual identity: Will an ordinary observer, giving such attention as a purchaser usually gives, find the accused battery pack design to be substantially the same as the ornamental design claimed in the ’299 patent, such that the observer would be induced to purchase the accused product supposing it to be the patented one?
- A key procedural and evidentiary question will be the challenge of litigating against a foreign e-commerce entity whose identity is alleged to be intentionally concealed. The complaint outlines tactics allegedly used by such sellers to evade liability, which may present practical hurdles for discovery and enforcement. (Compl. ¶11, ¶17-19).