Dyson v. Rising House Store: Design Patent Action Dismissed Without Prejudice
Dyson Technology Limited sued a group of online marketplace sellers including Rising House Store in the Northern District of Illinois, asserting two design patents covering hair stylers and hair dryers. The action was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice after just 73 days, leaving Dyson’s right to refile fully intact.
Dyson’s Schedule A enforcement action ends at first instance — without prejudice
Dyson Technology Limited, the UK-based consumer electronics giant, filed suit on 29 September 2025 in the Northern District of Illinois against a cohort of unnamed online sellers listed on Schedule A, a common enforcement mechanism targeting marketplace infringers. The complaint asserted two design patents — US29/627707 (USD0852415S) and US29/627749 (USD0853642S) — both covering the ornamental design of hair stylers and hair dryers, product categories that represent a core segment of Dyson’s premium consumer portfolio.
On 11 December 2025, Dyson filed a voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, specifically as to Rising House Store and the individuals and entities operating it. The case was dismissed without prejudice, meaning Dyson has not relinquished its underlying patent rights or forfeited the ability to bring a future action on the same claims against the same or related parties. No settlement terms are disclosed in the public record.
The 73-day duration is consistent with outcomes seen in Schedule A cases where a plaintiff secures a TRO or asset freeze, then negotiates privately before formal proceedings mature. The absence of defendant counsel on record and the targeted dismissal of a single named operator — Rising House Store — suggests the matter may have been resolved through a private agreement or cessation of infringing activity, though the public record does not confirm either. The underlying design patents remain live enforcement assets for Dyson.
Filing to Dismissed without Prejudice in 73 days
73 days — resolved significantly faster than the median district court patent case
Dismissed without prejudice: what this outcome means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1) dismissal preserves all of Dyson’s claims
A Rule 41(a)(1) voluntary dismissal without prejudice is a unilateral procedural move available to a plaintiff before the defendant has answered or moved for summary judgment. It terminates the current action cleanly but leaves the underlying claims fully intact. Dyson can refile the same design patent infringement claims against Rising House Store or related entities at any future point, subject to applicable statutes of limitations.
No merits adjudicationDyson retains full enforcement rights over both design patents
Dismissal without prejudice means Dyson’s design patents US29/627707 and US29/627749 have not been adjudicated, invalidated, or limited in scope. The patents remain active enforcement instruments. Dyson frequently uses Schedule A litigation as a tool to disrupt marketplace infringement rapidly — this outcome is consistent with achieving the immediate commercial objective (removal of infringing listings or cessation of sales) without the cost of full litigation.
Patents remain enforceableRising House Store exits without a judgment — but faces ongoing exposure
The dismissal without prejudice provides Rising House Store with no formal legal protection. No finding of non-infringement was made, and no invalidity determination protects them from a future action. If infringing product listings resume, Dyson retains the right to refile. Defendants in Schedule A cases who are dismissed without prejudice should treat the outcome as a warning, not an exoneration.
No legal protection obtainedSchedule A tactics signal Dyson’s aggressive design patent enforcement posture
This case is consistent with a broader Dyson enforcement strategy of using Schedule A multi-defendant filings in the Northern District of Illinois to police online marketplace sellers of counterfeit or infringing hair styling products. For competing sellers and private-label brands in the hair care appliance space, this litigation pattern suggests that Dyson’s design patents covering its signature styler aesthetics are actively monitored and enforced, raising the commercial risk for any product with visual similarity to the protected designs.
Active design patent enforcementFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Dyson Technology Limited | Individual | Consumer electronics innovator — holder of US29/627707 and US29/627749 hair styler design patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A | Individual | Online marketplace sellers operating as Rising House Store, identified via Schedule A procedureSearch 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 ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Husch Blackwell LLP | Law Firm | Representing Dyson Technology LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Martha M. Pacold | Judge | Illinois Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal notice expressly invokes Rule 41(a)(1) and identifies Rising House Store by name as the dismissed party, suggesting a targeted resolution rather than a global settlement of the Schedule A action. The ‘without prejudice’ designation is legally significant: it forecloses any argument by Rising House Store that the matter was resolved on the merits or that issue preclusion applies. Dyson’s retention of refile rights, combined with the short case duration, is consistent with a privately negotiated resolution or confirmed cessation of infringing activity by the defendant.
USD0852415S & USD0853642S — Dyson hair styler ornamental design patents
US29/627707 (issued as USD0852415S) and US29/627749 (issued as USD0853642S) are United States design patents protecting the ornamental appearance of Dyson’s hair styler and hair dryer products. Design patents under 35 U.S.C. § 171 protect the novel, ornamental characteristics of a manufactured article — not its function. The application numbers beginning with ’29/’ indicate design patent applications filed with the USPTO. Both patents are relevant to Dyson’s premium hair care product line, which includes the Airwrap and Supersonic ranges.
Dyson’s hair styling products command significant price premiums based substantially on their distinctive visual design. Protecting these designs through registered design patents creates a direct enforcement mechanism against manufacturers and marketplace sellers producing visually similar products at lower price points. In the highly competitive personal care appliance market, where private-label and counterfeit products proliferate on platforms such as Amazon and Alibaba, these design patents serve as critical assets in Dyson’s brand protection strategy.
Should you run an FTO against USD0852415S and USD0853642S?
Any company developing, manufacturing, or distributing hair stylers, hair dryers, or visually adjacent personal care appliances should consider a freedom-to-operate analysis against Dyson’s design patent portfolio. Design patent infringement is assessed under the ‘ordinary observer’ test — if an ordinary consumer would find the accused product substantially similar to the patented design, infringement may be found. Given Dyson’s demonstrated willingness to pursue Schedule A enforcement actions in the Northern District of Illinois, the FTO risk is material and ongoing.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the full scope of Dyson’s design patent portfolio covering hair care appliances, identify the closest prior art that limits claim scope, and surface any related continuation or family applications that may extend enforcement coverage. For product teams preparing to launch or distribute hair styling appliances in the US market, this analysis should be completed before market entry — not after a Schedule A complaint lands in your inbox.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USD0852415S to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar hair care appliance design patent cases in the N.D. Illinois
Browse related Schedule A design patent infringement actions involving hair styling appliances and personal care devices filed in the Northern District of Illinois.
What this case signals for the hair care appliance IP landscape
Dyson’s Schedule A enforcement pattern in the Northern District of Illinois reflects a systematic approach to protecting premium design IP against online marketplace sellers.
Schedule A filings are fast and effective — even without a final judgment
Dyson achieved case closure in 73 days without a single contested hearing on the merits. For brand owners in consumer electronics and personal care, this signals that Schedule A multi-defendant actions can disrupt infringing sales channels quickly. The without-prejudice dismissal is itself a common endpoint — it often follows a TRO-driven asset freeze that neutralises the commercial threat.
Design patent portfolios are front-line enforcement tools for premium hardware brands
Dyson’s assertion of two ornamental design patents — not utility patents — underscores the strategic value of design IP for consumer hardware companies. Design patents are faster to obtain, harder to design around in visually distinctive product categories, and highly effective in marketplace enforcement contexts where visual similarity is easy to demonstrate to a court.
Limited v Partnerships — key questions answered
Dismissed without prejudice means Dyson voluntarily ended the current action under Rule 41(a)(1) but retained the full right to refile the same design patent infringement claims against Rising House Store or related parties in the future. No court ruled on the merits of the infringement allegations, and neither design patent was adjudicated.
Dyson asserted two design patents: US29/627707 (issued as USD0852415S) and US29/627749 (issued as USD0853642S). Both patents protect the ornamental design of hair stylers and hair dryers and are part of Dyson’s active enforcement portfolio for its premium personal care appliance product line.
Schedule A cases allow a plaintiff to file a single action against multiple unnamed online marketplace sellers, identified in a confidential schedule. The Northern District of Illinois is a popular venue for these filings due to its familiarity with the procedure and willingness to grant TROs and asset freezes. Dyson uses this mechanism to efficiently pursue marketplace sellers of infringing hair care products.
Yes. Because the dismissal was without prejudice, Dyson is not barred from refiling infringement claims against Rising House Store or any associated entities based on the same design patents. The dismissal provides no legal protection or immunity to the defendant. Future infringing activity on the same or similar products could trigger a new action.
These design patents protect the visual appearance of Dyson’s hair styler and hair dryer products, which are sold at significant price premiums. For competing brands or private-label sellers, products with substantially similar ornamental designs risk Schedule A enforcement actions. Under the ordinary observer test for design patent infringement, visual similarity — not functional similarity — is the operative standard, making the risk relevant to any manufacturer in the hair care appliance category.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.