Dyson v. Schedule A Sellers: Default Judgment in Hair Styling Design Patent Case
Dyson Technology Limited secured a swift default judgment against more than 100 online marketplace sellers across platforms including Amazon, eBay, and Temu for infringing its USD853,642 hair styling apparatus design patent. The court granted a permanent injunction, ordered disgorgement of infringer profits under 35 U.S.C. § 289, and directed third-party payment processors to release frozen funds to Dyson — all within 77 days of filing.
Rapid default judgment in a mass online marketplace design patent action
On 25 October 2023, Dyson Technology Limited filed suit in the Northern District of Illinois against a large Schedule A defendant list — encompassing over 100 named and pseudonymous online sellers operating across major e-commerce platforms including Amazon, eBay, AliExpress, DHgate, Temu, and Wish.com. The asserted patent, USD853,642 (application number US29/627749), protects the ornamental design of Dyson’s hair styling and hair care apparatus — a product category in which Dyson holds a globally recognised and commercially premium design identity.
Because none of the defendants appeared to contest the claims, the court granted Dyson’s Motion for Entry of Default and Default Judgment on 10 January 2024 — just 77 days after filing. The judgment found defendants liable for patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271 and awarded Dyson the infringers’ profits under 35 U.S.C. § 289, the design patent-specific damages provision. A permanent injunction was issued barring defendants from offering for sale, selling, or importing the infringing products and requiring platform operators and payment processors to disable accounts and release frozen funds within seven to fourteen calendar days.
The 77-day resolution is consistent with the accelerated trajectory typically seen in Schedule A mass-defendant actions filed in the Northern District of Illinois, a venue that has developed well-established procedural machinery for these cases, including ex parte TROs and asset freezes. The case resolved before any defendant mounted a defence, meaning no claim construction, invalidity arguments, or substantive merits rulings appear on the record. The exact per-defendant profit amounts awarded are referenced in a chart appended to the judgment but are not reproduced in the public docket text reviewed here, leaving the aggregate damages figure uncertain from the public record alone.
Filing to settlement in 77 days
Days from filing to closed — faster than the vast majority of comparable district court IP cases
Default judgment: permanent injunction and profit disgorgement under § 289
Why default judgment resolved this case in 77 days
When defendants fail to appear or respond, a plaintiff may move for entry of default and then default judgment. In Schedule A cases, defendants are typically pseudonymous overseas sellers who neither engage counsel nor respond to service. Once the court enters default, liability is established as a matter of law — no trial is needed. The court then assesses appropriate relief, here a permanent injunction and profit disgorgement, based on Dyson’s submissions alone.
Default under Fed. R. Civ. P. 55§ 289 disgorges the infringer’s total profits — not just a royalty
Design patent damages under 35 U.S.C. § 289 are uniquely powerful: the patentee may recover the infringer’s total profits from the sale of any article to which the infringing design is applied. This differs from utility patent damages, which are typically limited to a reasonable royalty or lost profits. For marketplace sellers, this means all revenue attributable to the infringing product listing can be captured — a significant deterrent for volume sellers operating across multiple platform aliases.
35 U.S.C. § 289 — total profit disgorgementThird-party platform orders freeze and redirect seller funds
The judgment required Amazon, eBay, Alibaba, AliExpress, Temu, Wish.com, Walmart, Etsy, and DHgate — along with payment processors including PayPal, Alipay, and Amazon Pay — to disable infringing accounts within 7 days and release frozen funds to Dyson within 14 days. This platform-level enforcement, targeting the financial infrastructure rather than chasing individual defendants, is the defining feature of the Northern District of Illinois Schedule A playbook.
Platform & payment processor ordersNorthern District of Illinois: preferred venue for Schedule A design patent actions
The N.D. Illinois has become the dominant venue for brand owners pursuing mass online counterfeit and design patent enforcement actions. Its judges have developed efficient procedures for granting ex parte temporary restraining orders, asset freezes, and expedited service by email — making it uniquely suited to the Schedule A model. Dyson’s choice of this venue, represented by Greer Burns & Crain (a firm specialising in exactly this case type), signals a deliberate, repeatable enforcement strategy rather than a one-off dispute.
N.D. Illinois Schedule A modelFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Dyson Technology Limited | Company | Global consumer electronics group — holder of design patent USD853,642 for hair styling apparatusSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A | Company | 100+ pseudonymous online marketplace sellers across Amazon, eBay, AliExpress, DHgate, Temu, and othersSearch 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 Thomas M. Durkin | Chief Judge | Illinois Northern District Court — Chief JudgeSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Stipulation of dismissal — official text
The default judgment finds defendants liable under 35 U.S.C. § 271 without any contested merits hearing — liability is established solely because defendants failed to appear. The scope of the injunction is notably broad: it binds not only named defendants but all persons in active concert with them, and it directly obligates major third-party platforms and payment processors by name. The § 289 profit award applies per distinct defendant entity, with the court expressly clarifying that a single entity operating under multiple aliases counts only once — a detail that limits potential double-counting but also caps Dyson’s recovery per actor regardless of alias proliferation.
USD853,642 — Ornamental design of a hair styling and hair care apparatus
USD853,642 (filed under application number US29/627749) is a US design patent protecting the ornamental appearance of Dyson’s hair styling and hair care apparatus — a product category that includes the Dyson Airwrap and related devices. Design patents protect the way an article looks, not how it works, and are granted for a term of 15 years from issue. The ‘D’ prefix and application series (29/) identify it as a design patent under USPTO classification. Its protection is therefore limited to the specific visual configuration shown in the patent drawings, making claim scope a function of the drawings rather than written claim language.
Dyson’s hair styling devices occupy the premium end of a global market worth several billion dollars annually and are among the most counterfeited consumer electronics products on online marketplaces. A design patent covering the distinctive silhouette of these devices gives Dyson a commercially powerful enforcement tool: unlike trademark, design patent infringement does not require proof of consumer confusion, and the § 289 remedy makes even small-volume infringers financially exposed. Competitors developing hair styling devices with a visually similar form factor should treat USD853,642 as a live clearance priority.
Should you run an FTO analysis against USD853,642 before launching a hair styling device?
Any company developing, manufacturing, importing, or selling hair styling or hair care apparatus — particularly cordless, barrel-style, or airflow-based devices — should assess freedom to operate against Dyson’s US design patent portfolio, including USD853,642. Design patent infringement is determined by the ‘ordinary observer’ test: if an ordinary purchaser would perceive the accused product as substantially the same as the patented design, infringement is likely. Physical similarity in silhouette, component arrangement, or surface treatment is enough to trigger risk, even if the underlying technology differs entirely.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent allows R&D and IP teams to map their product’s visual design against active design patent claims in the hair appliance space — including Dyson’s full US and international design patent family — before committing to tooling or a product launch. Ongoing claim monitoring through Eureka ensures that newly issued Dyson design patents are flagged automatically, giving teams the lead time to design around or seek clearance before market entry.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USD0853642S to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Schedule A design patent cases in consumer electronics and hair appliances
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 landscape
Dyson’s Schedule A action demonstrates how premium design patent portfolios are being weaponised against the long tail of online marketplace infringement at scale.
Design patents are now the enforcement tool of choice against marketplace sellers
USD853,642 illustrates why consumer electronics brands are investing heavily in design patent filings: § 289’s total-profit disgorgement remedy, combined with the N.D. Illinois Schedule A procedure, creates a highly efficient enforcement pipeline. Brands that have not yet built a layered design patent portfolio around their hero products are exposed to copycat sellers with limited legal recourse beyond trademark.
Platform-level asset freezes make enforcement credible even against anonymous sellers
The court’s orders binding Amazon Pay, PayPal, Alipay, and Temu directly address the core challenge of anonymous cross-border defendants: they may be unreachable, but their funds are not. For IP teams monitoring infringement, this enforcement model means evidence of marketplace listings — screenshots, ASINs, seller aliases — is often sufficient to trigger a freeze before defendants can liquidate accounts.
Dyson v The — key questions answered
The Northern District of Illinois granted Dyson’s Motion for Entry of Default and Default Judgment on 10 January 2024, 77 days after filing. The court found all Defaulting Defendants liable for patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271, issued a permanent injunction, and awarded Dyson the defendants’ profits under 35 U.S.C. § 289. Third-party platforms and payment processors were ordered to freeze and release defendants’ funds to Dyson.
Dyson asserted US design patent USD853,642, filed under application number US29/627749. This design patent protects the ornamental appearance of Dyson’s hair styling and hair care apparatus. Design patents protect visual appearance rather than functional features and carry a 15-year term from grant under current US law.
Section 289 of the Patent Act allows a design patent holder to recover the infringer’s total profits from the sale of any article to which the infringing design is applied. Unlike utility patent damages — typically a reasonable royalty — § 289 does not limit recovery to the design’s contribution to overall product value. This makes it a potent remedy, particularly against volume marketplace sellers where total revenue per product can be recovered in full.
The Northern District of Illinois has become the preferred venue for Schedule A mass-defendant enforcement actions by brand owners. Its courts have established efficient procedures for granting ex parte temporary restraining orders, asset freezes, and email service on anonymous overseas defendants. Dyson was represented by Greer Burns & Crain, Ltd., a Chicago-based firm with extensive experience in this specific litigation model.
A Schedule A case is a litigation strategy where a brand owner sues a large number of pseudonymous online sellers — often identified only by marketplace aliases — in a single complaint. The plaintiff typically seeks an ex parte TRO and asset freeze early in the case, leveraging court orders directed at platform operators and payment processors to disable accounts and hold funds. Because most defendants never appear, the case typically resolves by default judgment. The N.D. Illinois has handled hundreds of such cases.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.