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” (Jurisdiction(s) unknown, alleged to be primarily People's Republic of China)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Greer, Burns & Crain, Ltd.
• Case Identification: 1:26-cv-01159, N.D. Ill., 02/02/2026
• Venue Allegations: Venue is based on allegations that Defendants operate interactive e-commerce stores that directly target and make sales to consumers in the United States, including within the state of Illinois.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ unauthorized battery packs, sold through various online storefronts, infringe a U.S. design patent for a battery pack.
• Technical Context: The dispute centers on the ornamental design of a battery pack, an accessory for consumer electronics such as cordless vacuums, where distinctive product aesthetics are a significant aspect of brand identity.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint is a "Schedule A" action, a procedural mechanism used to sue numerous, often anonymous, online sellers of allegedly infringing products in a single lawsuit. Plaintiff alleges its products embodying the patented design are marked in compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 287(a).

Case Timeline

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.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The complaint suggests that in a market with numerous consumer electronics, creating a unique and recognizable product appearance is a key challenge. It notes that Dyson products are known for their "distinctive patented designs" which have become "iconic" and are "broadly recognized by consumers" Compl. ¶¶ 5, 8
• The Patented Solution: The patent protects the specific ornamental appearance of a battery pack, not its function. The claimed design consists of the visual characteristics embodied in the patent's figures, featuring a generally rectangular base with rounded edges and an upwardly-projecting, multi-featured connector element (’299 Patent, Figs. 1-7). The patent explicitly notes that broken lines in the drawings illustrate environmental structure and form no part of the claimed design ’299 Patent, Description
• Technical Importance: The commercial importance of the design lies in its role as a source identifier; the complaint alleges that the "Dyson brand has come to symbolize high quality," and its distinctive designs make genuine products "instantly recognizable" to the public Compl. ¶ 5

Key Claims at a Glance

• The single claim asserted is for "The ornamental design for a battery pack, as shown and described" ’299 Patent, Claim
• In a design patent, the claim's scope is defined by the solid lines in the drawings. The core visual elements include:
  • The overall configuration and shape of the battery pack as a whole.
  • The specific proportions and relationship between the horizontal base and the vertical connector structure.
  • The surface contours and details depicted in the perspective, front, rear, side, top, and bottom views.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint identifies the accused products as "unauthorized and unlicensed" battery packs, referred to as the "Infringing Products" Compl. ¶ 3 The specific appearance of these products is referenced via an "Exhibit 1" which was not attached to the publicly filed complaint Compl. ¶ 3

Functionality and Market Context

• The accused products are battery packs sold as accessories for products such as cordless vacuums Compl. ¶ 5
• Defendants are alleged to operate "fully interactive, e-commerce stores" under various "Seller Aliases" on marketplace platforms including Amazon, eBay, Temu, and Walmart Compl. ¶¶ 2, 12
• The complaint alleges these e-commerce stores are designed to appear as "authorized online retailers, outlet stores, or wholesalers," making it difficult for consumers to distinguish them from legitimate sales channels Compl. ¶ 15 It further alleges that the Defendants are part of a network of infringers, often operating from China, who use tactics like multiple aliases and participation in online forums to conceal their identities and evade enforcement Compl. ¶¶ 10, 17, 19

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not contain a claim chart exhibit. The infringement theory is presented narratively. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants are making, using, offering for sale, and selling "Infringing Products that infringe directly and/or indirectly the ornamental design claimed in the Dyson Design" Compl. ¶ 25 The complaint includes several figures from the D'299 patent to illustrate the claimed design, such as a perspective view showing the design's overall configuration Compl. p. 4, FIG. 1 The core of the infringement allegation is that the visual appearance of the accused battery packs is substantially the same as the design claimed in the ’299 Patent. The legal standard for design patent infringement is whether an "ordinary observer," giving such attention as a purchaser usually gives, would be deceived into purchasing the accused product believing it to be the patented design.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Evidentiary Question: As the complaint does not include an image of the accused "Infringing Products," the primary unresolved issue is factual: What is the specific ornamental appearance of the products sold by Defendants, and how does that appearance compare to the drawings in the ’299 Patent?
  • Legal Question: The central legal question for the court will be the application of the "ordinary observer" test. This raises the question of whether, once evidence of the accused design is presented, an ordinary observer would find the two designs to be substantially the same, such that the resemblance is likely to induce a purchase of the accused product under the belief it is the patented one.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In design patent litigation, formal claim construction is less common than in utility patent cases, as the claim is primarily defined by the drawings. However, the identification of the "article of manufacture" can be relevant.

• The Term: "battery pack"
• Context and Importance: This term defines the article of manufacture to which the ornamental design is applied. Its definition is critical for determining the scope of the patent. Practitioners may focus on this term only if a defendant were to argue that its accused product is not a "battery pack," which appears unlikely in this context. The dispute is more likely to center on the visual comparison of the designs rather than the definition of the article itself.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent consistently uses the general term "battery pack" in its title, claim, and description, without limiting it to a particular type or size of battery pack ’299 Patent, Title; Claim; Description This may support an interpretation covering a range of battery packs.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specific visual details shown in Figures 1-7, which depict a pack for what appears to be a handheld device, could be argued to implicitly limit the scope of "battery pack" to articles with a similar form factor and application.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes a passing allegation of indirect infringement Compl. ¶ 25 and requests an injunction against those who aid or abet infringement Compl. Prayer for Relief ¶ 1(b) However, the specific factual allegations focus on the Defendants' own direct acts of making, using, selling, and importing the accused products through their e-commerce stores.
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants' infringement was willful Compl. ¶ 22 This allegation is supported by claims that Defendants act "knowingly and willfully" and that they are part of a community of infringers who "regularly participate in QQ.com chat rooms and through websites...regarding tactics for operating multiple accounts, evading detection, pending litigation, and potential new lawsuits" Compl. ¶¶ 19, 21

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

1. A Core Evidentiary Question of Visual Similarity: The central issue is whether the accused battery packs, once identified and presented to the court, are "substantially the same" as the design claimed in the D'299 patent. The case's outcome will depend heavily on a direct visual comparison under the "ordinary observer" test.
2. A Procedural Question of Jurisdiction and Joinder: Given the "Schedule A" nature of the case against numerous anonymous foreign entities, a key threshold question will be whether Plaintiff can successfully establish personal jurisdiction over the Defendants and demonstrate that their conduct constitutes a "series of transactions or occurrences" justifying their joinder in a single action.
3. A Question of Culpability and Damages: Should infringement be found, a critical question will be whether the alleged coordinated efforts to use aliases and share information on evading enforcement Compl. ¶ 19 constitute the "egregious" conduct necessary to support a finding of willful infringement and an award of enhanced damages or attorneys' fees.