Dyson Technology v. Schedule A Defendants — Design Patent Suit Over Battery Pack
Dyson Technology Limited brought a design patent infringement action in the Northern District of Illinois against dozens of e-commerce sellers, asserting USD710299S covering a battery pack design. The case named over 50 individual marketplace storefronts as defendants and remained open through early 2024.
Dyson’s Design Patent Strike Against Online Battery Pack Sellers
On October 24, 2023, Dyson Technology Limited filed Case No. 1:23-cv-15276 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, presided over by Chief Judge John J. Tharp, Jr. The complaint asserted infringement of design patent USD710299S (application number US29/464509), which protects the ornamental appearance of a battery pack. Dyson named as defendants ‘The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A’ — a litigation mechanism that consolidates numerous anonymous or pseudonymous online sellers into a single action.
The defendant roster spans more than 50 named storefronts operating across e-commerce marketplaces, including sellers identified by handles such as FLYLINKTECH, baohoang15, Mvmod, YaguDirect, Kingbatt, and many others. This approach is characteristic of so-called ‘Schedule A’ cases, a well-established enforcement strategy in the Northern District of Illinois targeting counterfeit or infringing goods sold through platforms like Amazon, eBay, and AliExpress. The case was marked closed on January 30, 2024, though no verdict, basis of termination, or cost ruling is recorded in the available public data.
The approximately 98-day window between filing and the case-closed date is consistent with the pattern seen in Schedule A cases, which frequently resolve through default judgments, consent orders, or early settlements after courts grant ex parte temporary restraining orders freezing seller accounts and assets. The absence of a recorded verdict or dismissal basis leaves the precise resolution mechanism unclear from the public record. Whether individual defendants reached separate terms or whether a default was entered cannot be confirmed from the available data.
Filing to filing in 98 days
Case duration from filing to close: approximately 98 days
Full party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Dyson Technology Limited | Company | Global consumer electronics IP licensor — holder of design patent USD710299SSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A | Company | 50+ pseudonymous e-commerce marketplace sellers of battery pack productsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Andrew Daniel Burnham | Attorney | Counsel for Dyson Technology LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jake Michael Christensen | Attorney | Counsel for Dyson Technology LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Justin R. Gaudio | Attorney | Counsel for Dyson Technology LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Lawrence J. Crain | Attorney | Counsel for Dyson Technology LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge John J. Tharp, Jr. | Chief Judge | Illinois Northern District Court — Chief JudgeSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Stipulation of dismissal — official text
No verdict is recorded in the available case data for Case No. 1:23-cv-15276. The case-closed date of January 30, 2024, falls approximately 98 days after filing — a timeframe consistent with Schedule A cases that resolve via default judgment or negotiated dismissal before reaching a formal merits ruling. The absence of a verdict entry suggests the matter concluded through procedural rather than substantive adjudication, though this cannot be confirmed from the public record.
USD710299S — Ornamental Design for a Battery Pack
USD710299S, filed under application number US29/464509, is a U.S. design patent protecting the ornamental appearance of a battery pack. Design patents protect the non-functional, aesthetic aspects of a product — meaning the scope of protection is defined by the visual impression created by the claimed design, not by how the battery operates or its technical specifications. Design patents in the consumer electronics accessory space have become increasingly valuable enforcement tools, particularly against low-cost marketplace sellers who replicate the look of branded products.
For Dyson, a company whose product identity is closely tied to distinctive visual design language, USD710299S represents a strategic IP asset beyond the core vacuum and appliance portfolio. Asserting this patent against 50+ marketplace sellers signals that Dyson treats its battery pack aesthetics as commercially protectable IP — not merely functional components. Competitors developing compatible or replacement battery products for Dyson devices face a meaningful infringement risk if their pack design is visually similar to the claimed ornamental design, regardless of whether components or chemistry differ.
Should you run an FTO analysis against USD710299S?
Any company manufacturing, importing, or selling battery packs that are compatible with or resemble Dyson products should treat USD710299S as a priority clearance item. This is especially true for marketplace sellers, OEM suppliers, and accessory brands operating in the cordless vacuum and power tool battery segment. Design patent infringement analysis hinges on the ‘ordinary observer’ test — a visual similarity standard that can capture products that are functionally unrelated to the patentee’s own goods. Early FTO analysis is far less costly than defending a Schedule A action with an ex parte asset freeze.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent enables product and legal teams to run structured freedom-to-operate searches against USD710299S and related design patent families in minutes. Eureka surfaces visually similar design patents, identifies claim scope boundaries, and flags active enforcement activity — giving R&D teams the intelligence to design around risks before products reach the market. Ongoing claim monitoring ensures you are alerted if Dyson files continuation designs or expands its battery pack IP portfolio.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USD0710299S to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Schedule A Design Patent Cases in Consumer Electronics
PatSnap Eureka tracks related litigation across truck body equipment, vehicle accessories, and comparable infringement actions in the Georgia district system.
What this case signals for the consumer electronics IP enforcement landscape
Dyson’s Schedule A action reflects a systematic IP enforcement posture that product teams and online sellers should monitor closely.
Schedule A litigation is Dyson’s preferred tool against marketplace counterfeits
Filing a single consolidated action against 50+ pseudonymous sellers in N.D. Illinois is a deliberate, high-efficiency enforcement strategy. It allows IP holders to obtain ex parte asset freezes across multiple platforms simultaneously. Companies selling battery accessories or replacement packs under any brand should treat this as a clear signal that Dyson actively monitors marketplace listings.
Design patents on product form are a serious litigation risk for accessory makers
USD710299S protects the ornamental appearance of a battery pack — not its function. This means even technically distinct battery products can infringe if their visual design is substantially similar. R&D and product teams developing replacement or compatible battery packs for Dyson devices should conduct design clearance searches before commercialisation, not after launch.
Dyson v The — key questions answered
The case is recorded as closed as of January 30, 2024, approximately 98 days after filing. However, no verdict or basis of termination is recorded in the available public data. The precise resolution mechanism — whether default judgment, settlement, or voluntary dismissal — cannot be confirmed from the public record.
Dyson asserted design patent USD710299S, filed under application number US29/464509. This is a U.S. design patent protecting the ornamental appearance of a battery pack product. Design patents cover aesthetic appearance, not functional features.
Schedule A litigation is a common enforcement strategy in the Northern District of Illinois where a plaintiff sues numerous pseudonymous or anonymous online sellers in a single consolidated action. It allows the plaintiff to seek ex parte temporary restraining orders freezing marketplace accounts and PayPal balances across dozens of defendants simultaneously — making it a cost-efficient tool against counterfeit and infringing goods sold through platforms like Amazon and eBay.
The defendants include over 50 named e-commerce marketplace storefronts, including baohoang15, FLYLINKTECH, huapingus2, Mvmod, YaguDirect, Kingbatt, BTKPOWER, Morstone, and many others. These are sellers identified by marketplace handles rather than legal entity names, which is typical of Schedule A enforcement actions.
The product at issue was a battery pack. Dyson alleged that the defendant sellers infringed the ornamental design of a battery pack as protected by design patent USD710299S. The case suggests that Dyson actively monitors third-party battery pack listings on online marketplaces for design similarity to its patented product appearance.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.