Dyson Secures Voluntary Dismissal in Battery Pack Design Patent Case

Updated on Dec. 2, 2025 | Written by Patsnap Team

Introduction

Dyson Technology Limited has successfully concluded its design patent infringement action against multiple online sellers in the Illinois Northern District Court. Specifically, Case No. 1:25-cv-00851, presided over by Chief Judge Manish S. Shah, ended with a voluntary dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1) after just 111 days.

The case targeted “Schedule A” defendants—a consolidated litigation strategy against e-commerce counterfeiters. Central to this Dyson Schedule A patent case analysis was U.S. Design Patent No. D710,299S, which protects Dyson’s distinctive battery pack design.

For IP professionals tracking Northern District of Illinois patent cases, this matter demonstrates aggressive design patent enforcement. Similarly, R&D teams can learn how design patents serve as strategic tools against counterfeits.

Case Summary

Case Overview

The Parties

Plaintiff Dyson Technology Limited serves as the IP holding subsidiary of Dyson Ltd., the British technology company known for innovative vacuum cleaners and cordless appliances. Furthermore, Dyson maintains an extensive global patent portfolio protecting both utility innovations and distinctive designs.

The Defendants, identified as Schedule A entities, represent multiple online sellers. This procedural approach is commonly used in anti-counterfeiting patent litigation, as it allows IP holders to pursue numerous infringers through consolidated actions.

The Patent at Issue

U.S. Design Patent No. D710,299S (Application No. 29/464509) protects Dyson’s battery pack ornamental design. Notably, design patents safeguard visual appearance for 15 years from grant. Because Dyson’s brand identity ties closely to distinctive aesthetics, these patents serve as critical enforcement tools. Explore similar cases on Patsnap Eureka IP to analyze Dyson’s broader portfolio.

The Accused Products

The complaint targeted battery packs allegedly copying Dyson’s protected design. In particular, counterfeit Dyson-compatible batteries represent a significant market problem, implicating both trademark and design patent validity concerns.

Legal Representation

Dyson retained Greer, Burns & Crain, Ltd., a Chicago IP firm experienced in anti-counterfeiting matters. Notably, no defense counsel appeared on record, which is consistent with typical Schedule A patterns where defendants default or settle.

Litigation Timeline & Procedural History

⚖️ January 24, 2025: Dyson filed in Illinois Northern District Court, a preferred venue for Schedule A actions. Access case documents via PACER.

⚖️ Case Duration: The 111-day resolution reflects Schedule A litigation efficiency. Typically, defendants either default, settle, or face dismissal once enforcement objectives are achieved.

⚖️ Presiding Judge: Chief Judge Manish S. Shah oversaw proceedings, bringing experienced IP litigation oversight to this battery pack patent infringement 2025 matter.

⚖️ May 15, 2025: Dyson filed voluntary dismissal after final defendant PASHITA US was resolved, thereby terminating the case.

The Verdict & Legal Analysis

Outcome

The case concluded through voluntary dismissal pursuant to FRCP Rule 41(a)(1). Consequently, no damages or formal verdict was entered. Track litigation trends with Patsnap Eureka IP for design patent enforcement patterns.

💡 Key Insight: Voluntary dismissal after systematic defendant resolution indicates Dyson achieved enforcement objectives—likely through default judgments, settlements, and platform delistings—without requiring full trial proceedings.

Verdict Cause Analysis

The infringement action and dismissal pattern suggest success through several mechanisms:

📊 Default Judgments: Many Schedule A defendants fail to appear, thereby enabling permanent injunctions

📊 Settlements: In contrast, responding defendants often agree to consent judgments and monetary terms

📊 Platform Delistings: Additionally, litigation pressure effectively removes infringing e-commerce listings

Legal Significance

This case reinforces critical design patent claim construction principles:

Design Patents as Enforcement Tools: USD710,299S demonstrates how design patents complement trademark claims. According to USPTO design patent guidance, these rights protect ornamental features independent of function. Research patent families on Patsnap Eureka IP.

Schedule A Efficiency: Moreover, the 111-day resolution illustrates cost-effective consolidated enforcement—critical for addressing numerous online infringers.

Venue Strategy: As a result, Northern District of Illinois remains a leading anti-counterfeiting litigation forum.

⚖️ Strategic Note: Schedule A litigation enables IP holders to achieve injunctive relief, monetary settlements, and marketplace delistings efficiently, rather than pursuing individual actions against each seller.

Strategic Takeaways

⚖️ For Patent Holders:

• Design patents provide willful infringement leverage beyond utility patents
• Additionally, Schedule A litigation offers cost-effective multi-defendant enforcement
• Furthermore, voluntary dismissal preserves resources while achieving objectives

⚖️ For Accused Infringers:

• Early plaintiff engagement may yield favorable settlement terms
• Meanwhile, platform compliance policies increasingly favor rights holders

🔬 For R&D Teams:

• Distinctive designs warrant protection beyond prior art differentiation
• Therefore, freedom to operate (FTO) analysis should include design patent review
• Importantly, accessories represent enforcement priorities for major brands

Industry & Competitive Implications

Dyson’s enforcement reflects broader consumer electronics patent litigation 2025 trends. As cordless appliance markets expand, counterfeit accessories have proliferated online.

Consequently, this case signals aggressive enforcement. Companies in robotic vacuums, cordless tools, and portable electronics should therefore evaluate their design patent strategies. Analyze patent landscapes on Patsnap Eureka IP to identify competitive IP positions.

For licensing professionals, design patents carry meaningful economic leverage. In most cases, settlement terms include monetary payments alongside injunctive relief, as noted by IPWatchdog’s design patent coverage.

Key Takeaways

⚖️ For Patent Attorneys:

• Design patents remain powerful anti-counterfeiting tools
• Additionally, Illinois Northern District Court patent cases resolve efficiently via Schedule A
• Finally, Rule 41(a)(1) provides flexible conclusion after enforcement success

📊 For IP Professionals:

• Active design patent portfolios demonstrate strategic enforcement value
• Moreover, coordinated trademark and patent enforcement maximizes impact

🔬 For R&D Teams:

• Product designs warrant design patent evaluation
• Consequently, visual distinctiveness provides enforcement leverage

Watch: Continued design patent infringement enforcement in consumer electronics. Start your patent research on Patsnap Eureka IP.

FAQ

What patent was involved? U.S. Design Patent No. D710,299S protects Dyson’s battery pack design.

What was the termination basis? Voluntary dismissal under FRCP Rule 41(a)(1) occurred after all defendants were resolved.

How long did litigation last? The case concluded in 111 days (January 24 – May 15, 2025).