Dyson Technology v. MAX Store: Design Patent Infringement Dismissed in 18 Days
Dyson Technology Limited filed suit in the Northern District of Illinois against MAX Store, asserting two design patents covering hair styling and hair care apparatus. The case was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice just 18 days after filing — one of the shortest lifecycles in Dyson’s active enforcement campaign.
Dyson’s 18-Day ‘Schedule A’ Campaign Hits MAX Store
On October 6, 2025, Dyson Technology Limited filed Case No. 1:25-cv-12212 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, asserting infringement of two design patents — USD0852415S (App. No. US29/627707) and USD0853642S (App. No. US29/627749) — against a defendant identified as ‘The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A,’ specifically MAX Store. Both patents cover the ornamental design of hair styling and hair care apparatus, products central to Dyson’s consumer brand identity.
On October 24, 2025 — just 18 days after filing — Dyson filed a notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1), terminating the action against MAX Store and all individuals and entities operating under that name. A dismissal without prejudice means no judgment was entered on the merits, and Dyson retains the legal right to refile the same claims against the same defendant at a future date, subject to applicable statutes of limitations.
The 18-day duration suggests the matter was resolved or strategically paused before the court issued any substantive ruling. The public record is silent on whether a settlement, a compliance undertaking, or a change in defendant identification drove the dismissal. This pattern — short lifecycle, no defendant counsel on record, voluntary exit without prejudice — is consistent with the broader ‘Schedule A’ enforcement strategy frequently employed against e-commerce sellers accused of counterfeit or infringing goods.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 18 days
18 days — resolved before any substantive court ruling
Voluntarily dismissed: what the Rule 41(a)(1) exit means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1) dismissal: no merits, no bar to refiling
A voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1) allows a plaintiff to exit a case unilaterally before the defendant serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment. Because no merits ruling was reached, the dismissal carries no claim-preclusive effect. Dyson retains full rights to refile the same infringement claims against MAX Store in the future, making this an exit strategy rather than a resolution.
No merits adjudicationWithout prejudice vs. with prejudice: public record is silent on terms
The verdict text explicitly states ‘without prejudice,’ meaning Dyson is not barred from reasserting these design patent claims. A dismissal with prejudice would permanently extinguish the claims. The public docket does not disclose whether a private settlement, compliance agreement, or other arrangement accompanied this dismissal — that distinction matters commercially but cannot be confirmed from the record alone.
Refiling rights preservedMAX Store exits without a judgment — but exposure persists
MAX Store faces no court-ordered injunction, damages award, or finding of infringement from this action. However, ‘without prejudice’ dismissal provides no immunity. If MAX Store continues selling the accused hair styling products, Dyson can refile, potentially with a stronger evidentiary record. The absence of defendant counsel on the docket suggests no formal legal representation was engaged during the 18-day window.
No judgment; future risk remainsSchedule A enforcement: a pattern of rapid, targeted pressure
This case fits a well-documented enforcement pattern in which brand owners file ‘Schedule A’ actions against groups of e-commerce sellers, secure temporary restraining orders to freeze assets or listings, and then dismiss selectively once compliance or payment is achieved. The 18-day resolution and absence of any defendant legal representation are consistent with this model. Sellers in the hair care and styling appliance space should monitor Dyson’s design patent portfolio closely.
E-commerce IP enforcement trendFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Dyson Technology Limited | Individual | Consumer appliance and IP licensing company — holder of USD0852415S and USD0853642SSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A | Individual | E-commerce seller identified as MAX Store in Schedule A defendant listSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Andrew Daniel Burnham | 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 ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Greer, Burns & Crain, Ltd. | Law Firm | Representing Dyson Technology LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Edmond E. Chang | Judge | Illinois Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal notice invokes Rule 41(a)(1), the self-executing provision allowing a plaintiff to withdraw without court approval before the defendant answers. The phrase ‘without prejudice as to MAX Store’ is precise: it scopes the dismissal to this named defendant and entity cluster while preserving Dyson’s ability to refile identical claims. No findings of fact, no liability determination, and no damages assessment attach to this exit. The order is operationally final but legally open-ended for the patent holder.
USD0852415S & USD0853642S — Hair Styling Apparatus Design Patents
USD0852415S (App. No. US29/627707) and USD0853642S (App. No. US29/627749) are U.S. design patents protecting the ornamental appearance of Dyson’s hair styling and hair care apparatus. Design patents cover visual characteristics — shape, configuration, surface ornamentation — rather than functional innovation. The ‘415 and ‘642 patents are likely tied to Dyson’s high-profile product lines such as the Airwrap or Supersonic, which are defined as much by their distinctive industrial design as by their underlying airflow technology.
For Dyson, these design patents function as a brand moat: they block look-alike products from capturing consumer demand at lower price points on e-commerce platforms. In the hair care appliance sector, visual differentiation is a primary purchase driver, making design IP strategically equivalent to a utility patent in commercial terms. Any manufacturer or seller whose product resembles the protected silhouette, nozzle shape, or body configuration risks an infringement claim under the ‘ordinary observer’ standard — without needing to copy a single technical feature.
Should you run an FTO against USD0852415S and USD0853642S?
If your product team is developing or sourcing hair styling tools — dryers, stylers, curl attachments, or multi-function devices — that share visual characteristics with Dyson’s product lines, an FTO analysis against these two design patents is not optional. The Northern District of Illinois has processed Dyson Schedule A actions rapidly, and asset freezes can precede any opportunity to mount a defence. Sellers on Amazon, Temu, Shopify, or Alibaba storefronts are particularly exposed.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the full claim scope of USD0852415S and USD0853642S, identify related continuations or divisional design applications in Dyson’s portfolio, and flag visual similarity risk against your product’s design drawings. For procurement teams sourcing from third-party manufacturers, Eureka can also screen supplier catalogues against known infringing product profiles, helping you avoid Schedule A exposure before it reaches your storefront.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USD0852415S to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Design Patent Cases: Hair Care Appliances in N.D. Illinois
Explore comparable Schedule A design patent enforcement actions involving hair styling and hair care products in the Northern District of Illinois.
What this case signals for the hair care appliance IP landscape
Dyson’s rapid-fire Schedule A filing underscores that design patent enforcement in consumer appliances is accelerating — and targeted at online marketplaces.
Design patents are Dyson’s sharpest enforcement tool against e-commerce sellers
USD0852415S and USD0853642S cover ornamental design elements — not underlying technology. Design patent infringement is assessed by the ‘ordinary observer’ test, making it easier to establish and harder for sellers to design around quickly. For marketplace vendors, product appearance alone can trigger a lawsuit and asset freeze within days of filing.
Without-prejudice exits preserve maximum optionality for the patent holder
Dyson’s Rule 41(a)(1) dismissal costs nothing in terms of future rights. If MAX Store resumes infringing activity — or if Dyson gathers stronger evidence — refiling is straightforward. Competitors and IP teams should treat a voluntary dismissal without prejudice as a pause, not a resolution, when assessing ongoing risk.
Limited v Partnerships — key questions answered
Dyson asserted two design patents: USD0852415S (App. No. US29/627707) and USD0853642S (App. No. US29/627749), both covering the ornamental design of hair styling and hair care apparatus. No utility patents were identified in the case filing.
The public record does not disclose the reason. A Rule 41(a)(1) without-prejudice dismissal typically suggests the plaintiff achieved its immediate objective — such as a compliance undertaking or informal settlement — or chose to pause litigation for strategic reasons. Dyson retains all rights to refile the same claims against MAX Store.
It means no judgment was entered against MAX Store, but Dyson is not barred from suing again. If MAX Store continues selling the accused hair styling products, Dyson can refile the same infringement claims. The dismissal provides no immunity and should not be read as a clearance to continue the accused activity.
Schedule A cases list unnamed or pseudonymous defendants — typically e-commerce sellers — in an exhibit rather than the complaint caption. Plaintiffs like Dyson use this format to file a single action against multiple online marketplace vendors simultaneously, often seeking a TRO to freeze accounts or product listings. The 18-day lifecycle of this case is consistent with this enforcement model.
The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Case No. 1:25-cv-12212) and assigned to Judge Edmond E. Chang. The case closed on October 24, 2025, before any substantive ruling was issued by the court.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.