Dyson Technology Ltd v. Schedule A Defendants — Default Judgment on Hair Styling Design Patent
Dyson Technology Limited pursued over 100 anonymous e-commerce sellers across platforms including Amazon, AliExpress, and Temu for copying its patented hair styling apparatus design (U.S. Patent No. D853,642). The Illinois Northern District Court granted default judgment in just 65 days, awarding profits from each defaulting defendant under 35 U.S.C. § 289.
Dyson wins rapid default judgment over hair device design copycats
Filed on 13 November 2023 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, this action was brought by Dyson Technology Limited against a large group of anonymous online sellers operating across major e-commerce platforms including Amazon, AliExpress, eBay, Wish, DHgate, Walmart, Etsy, and Temu. The asserted patent — U.S. Design Patent No. D853,642, issued 9 July 2019 — covers the ornamental design of Dyson’s hair styling and hair care apparatus. Plaintiff alleged that defendants were selling counterfeit or infringing hair care devices that copied the Dyson Design through multiple seller aliases.
The case closed on 17 January 2024 — just 65 days after filing — when Judge Sara L. Ellis entered a default judgment against all remaining defendants who had neither answered nor appeared. The court found personal jurisdiction over the defendants on the basis that their e-commerce stores actively targeted U.S. and Illinois consumers, accepted U.S. dollar payments, and offered domestic shipping. Under 35 U.S.C. § 289, Dyson was awarded the infringers’ profits, with individual awards ranging from $250 to over $20,000 per defendant, and third-party platforms were ordered to release restrained funds to Dyson within 14 days.
The 65-day resolution reflects a well-established enforcement template used against Schedule A defendants in the Northern District of Illinois, where coordinated TRO applications and platform-level asset freezes routinely accelerate outcomes. Because no defendant appeared, the factual allegations were deemed admitted and no substantive claim construction or validity challenge was litigated. The public record does not reveal the total aggregate damages collected or the extent to which restrained funds fully satisfied the awards — outcomes that may be pursued through supplemental proceedings authorised by the judgment.
Filing to settlement in 65 days
65 days — resolved faster than the vast majority of multi-defendant patent cases
Default judgment: what the court ordered and what it means for both parties
Default judgment: what it means when defendants don’t appear
A default judgment is entered when a defendant fails to answer or otherwise respond to a complaint within the allotted time. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55, the court treats the plaintiff’s factual allegations as admitted. Here, none of the defaulting defendants appeared, so the court accepted Dyson’s infringement claims without a contested hearing. The judgment is legally binding on the named defendants but does not constitute a merits ruling that binds third parties or establishes broader precedent on patent validity.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 55 default35 U.S.C. § 289: design patent profit disgorgement explained
Unlike utility patent cases where damages are typically a reasonable royalty or lost profits, design patent law under 35 U.S.C. § 289 allows a patent holder to recover the infringer’s total profits from sale of any article to which the infringing design is applied. The court awarded individual profit amounts per defendant — ranging from $250 to $20,572 — based on evidence of actual sales through each seller alias. This statutory remedy is powerful in design cases because it does not require the plaintiff to prove lost profits or apportion damages to the patented feature.
§ 289 total profits remedyPlatform-level asset freezes: how Dyson secured recovery
A core feature of Schedule A enforcement is the use of temporary restraining orders to freeze seller accounts across multiple platforms before defendants can withdraw funds. Here, the court ordered PayPal, Amazon Pay, Alibaba, Alipay, eBay, Wish, Temu, DHgate, Walmart, Etsy, and Ant Financial to release restrained funds to Dyson within 14 days of the order. This mechanism converts a paper judgment into actual recovery even where defendants are pseudonymous or overseas — a key reason Dyson and similar rights holders favour this district and this enforcement model.
Multi-platform asset freezePermanent injunction: e-commerce platforms ordered to delist infringing stores
The default judgment includes a permanent injunction prohibiting defaulting defendants from offering for sale, selling, or importing the infringing hair styling products. Critically, platform operators — including Amazon, AliExpress, Temu, eBay, Wish, and Walmart — were ordered to disable accounts and cease hosting or advertising infringing listings within seven calendar days of receiving notice. This injunctive scope, binding on third-party platforms with actual notice, is a standard but potent element of the Schedule A enforcement playbook that extends effective relief far beyond the named defendants.
Permanent injunction grantedFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Dyson Technology Limited | Company | Global consumer technology company — holder of U.S. Design Patent D853,642Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A | Company | 100+ anonymous online marketplace sellers operating under pseudonymous seller aliasesSearch 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 | Justin Tyler Joseph | Attorney | Counsel for Dyson Technology LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Lawrence J. Crain | Attorney | Counsel for Dyson Technology LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Sara L. Ellis | Chief Judge | Illinois Northern District Court — Chief JudgeSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Stipulation of dismissal — official text
The default judgment establishes liability and awards individuated profits under 35 U.S.C. § 289 without any contested merits finding. Because no defendant appeared, the court’s infringement finding rests solely on Dyson’s uncontroverted evidence — primarily screenshots confirming each storefront’s readiness to ship to Illinois. The award amounts reflect actual sales data submitted by Dyson; the $250 floor for many defendants likely represents a minimum imposed where sales data was unavailable or unverifiable. The judgment’s injunctive provisions bind both defendants and named third-party platforms, giving Dyson operational enforcement leverage well beyond the damages figures.
U.S. Design Patent D853,642 — Dyson hair styling apparatus ornamental design
U.S. Design Patent No. D853,642 protects the ornamental design of Dyson’s hair styling and hair care apparatus, as shown in the patent’s figures. Issued on 9 July 2019 and filed under application number 29/627,749, it is a design patent — meaning it covers the distinctive visual appearance of the product rather than its functional features. Design patents in the U.S. have a term of 15 years from grant. The patent sits within a broader category of personal care appliance design IP, a domain where Dyson has historically maintained a strong and actively enforced portfolio to protect its distinctive industrial design language.
The strategic importance of D853,642 lies in its application to a market segment — consumer hair styling tools — that has seen explosive growth in online grey-market and counterfeit sales. Because design patent infringement is assessed using an ‘ordinary observer’ standard (whether an ordinary purchaser would be deceived into thinking the accused product is the same as the patented design), the visual similarity required to trigger liability is often met by the kind of close copies sold on marketplace platforms. This makes design patents particularly effective as enforcement instruments in e-commerce contexts, where Dyson has now demonstrated a willingness to pursue large defendant cohorts simultaneously.
Should your hair care product be cleared against U.S. Design Patent D853,642?
Any company designing, manufacturing, or sourcing hair styling appliances — including air stylers, hair dryers, multi-function styling tools, or similar personal care devices — that share visual characteristics with Dyson’s product line faces non-trivial design patent risk. This case confirms that Dyson actively monitors and enforces D853,642 at scale across major e-commerce platforms. Sellers operating on Amazon, Temu, AliExpress, eBay, or similar marketplaces should treat an FTO review against this patent as a baseline step before listing any hair care appliance with a similar form factor.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent allows product teams and IP counsel to run claim-level freedom-to-operate analysis against D853,642 and related Dyson design filings, mapping the visual claim scope against product renders or images. Eureka’s claim monitoring capability can also flag new Dyson design applications or continuations in the hair care appliance category before they issue, giving in-house teams early warning of expanding enforcement risk in this product space.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USD0853642S to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar design patent enforcement cases in the hair care and consumer device sector
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 hair care and consumer electronics IP landscape
Dyson’s swift default judgment illustrates how design patent enforcement has become a precision tool against grey-market and counterfeit e-commerce sellers.
Schedule A enforcement is now a standard IP playbook for consumer brands
The Northern District of Illinois has become the preferred jurisdiction for multi-defendant design patent cases against online marketplaces. Dyson’s 65-day outcome — from filing to default judgment — reflects a repeatable enforcement template: TRO, platform freeze, default, profit disgorgement. Brands operating in adjacent consumer product categories should assess whether this model is available to them and whether their design patents are registered and current.
Design patent registration is a prerequisite for this level of enforcement speed
U.S. Design Patent D853,642 enabled Dyson to invoke both the § 289 profit disgorgement remedy and the visual-comparison infringement standard — neither of which is available for unregistered trade dress alone. Companies selling differentiated consumer hardware should audit their design patent portfolio to ensure ornamental product features are protected before entering high-volume online markets where knockoffs proliferate.
Dyson v The — key questions answered
U.S. Design Patent D853,642, issued to Dyson on 9 July 2019, covers the ornamental design of Dyson’s hair styling and hair care apparatus. It protects the distinctive visual appearance of the product — not its function — and was the sole asserted patent in this case. It was filed under application number 29/627,749.
The court found personal jurisdiction based on evidence that each defendant e-commerce store actively targeted Illinois consumers: stores offered shipping to Illinois, accepted U.S. dollar payments, and were accessible and interactive to Illinois residents. Screenshot evidence submitted by Dyson confirmed each storefront’s readiness to transact with customers in Illinois, satisfying the minimum contacts standard.
Under 35 U.S.C. § 289, a design patent holder may recover the infringer’s total profits from the sale of any article to which the infringing design is applied. This is distinct from utility patent damages, which typically require apportionment. In this case, individual awards ranged from $250 to over $20,000 per defendant based on actual sales evidence submitted by Dyson.
A ‘Schedule A’ case involves a plaintiff suing a large group of pseudonymous or anonymous e-commerce defendants in a single action, with their identities listed on an attached schedule. The Northern District of Illinois is frequently chosen for these actions because of judicial familiarity with the format, willingness to issue TROs, and established procedures for platform-level asset freezes — all of which enable rapid enforcement outcomes.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), a defendant may move to set aside a default judgment on grounds such as excusable neglect, lack of personal jurisdiction, or fraud. However, given the court’s findings on personal jurisdiction and the service by electronic publication and email, any such challenge would face a high bar. No defendant appeared to contest the judgment, and the public record does not reflect any pending motion to vacate as of the case close date.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.