Dyson v. Schedule A Defendants: Default Judgment in Battery Pack Design Patent Case
Dyson Technology Limited secured a default judgment against more than 40 online marketplace sellers accused of infringing USD710299S, a design patent covering Dyson’s battery pack. Filed in the Northern District of Illinois and resolved in just 161 days, the case ended without a single defendant appearing to contest the claims.
Dyson pursues 40+ marketplace sellers in coordinated design patent action
On 17 January 2024, Dyson Technology Limited filed suit in the Northern District of Illinois against a large group of online sellers collectively identified as partnerships and unincorporated associations on Schedule A. The asserted patent, USD710299S (application no. US29/464509), protects an ornamental design for a battery pack — a product category heavily counterfeited and knock-off-distributed across e-commerce platforms. Named defendants included sellers operating under storefronts such as mei zhenshop, akku-mall2016, Epowon, CS Cameron Sino Battery, and dozens of additional marketplace accounts.
On 26 June 2024, Judge John Robert Blakey granted Dyson’s motion for default judgment against all defendants listed in the Amended Schedule A. No defaulting defendant appeared at the motion hearing or filed any objection, resulting in a judgment on the merits in Dyson’s favour. The default mechanism means the court accepted the plaintiff’s well-pleaded allegations as true without any evidentiary trial, and the accompanying default judgment order constitutes a binding merits ruling against each named defendant.
The 161-day resolution is consistent with the expedited pace common in Schedule A ‘marketplace infringement’ actions, where plaintiffs often obtain TROs and asset freezes early in the proceedings. The absence of any defence appearance suggests that the defendant sellers — predominantly appearing to operate from overseas — either lacked the resources or incentive to contest. The public record does not disclose the specific damages or injunctive relief awarded; those details would be contained in the sealed or separately filed default judgment order.
Filing to Judgment on the merits for Plaintiff in 161 days
161 days — faster than average N.D. Illinois patent resolution
Default judgment entered: what the ruling means for both parties
Default judgment: merits ruling without a contested trial
A default judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 55 is entered when a defendant fails to appear or respond. The court treats the plaintiff’s well-pleaded allegations as admitted. Here, Judge Blakey granted the motion after no defendant appeared at the 26 June 2024 hearing, resulting in a judgment on the merits — not merely a procedural dismissal — binding on all defendants named in the Amended Schedule A.
Judgment on the meritsDyson secures enforceable judgment across 40+ seller accounts
The default judgment gives Dyson an enforceable court order against each named defendant, typically enabling asset freezes, platform de-listing, and recovery of damages or disgorgement of profits. Design patent USD710299S is now backed by a live merits judgment, strengthening Dyson’s ability to pursue further enforcement against similar marketplace sellers and signalling active IP policing to the e-commerce ecosystem.
Strong enforcement positionNon-appearance forfeits all defences for named sellers
By failing to appear, all named defendants permanently forfeited their right to contest infringement, challenge patent validity, or dispute damages in this proceeding. While a defendant could theoretically move to vacate a default judgment under Rule 60(b), such relief requires showing good cause, a meritorious defence, and lack of prejudice to the plaintiff — a high bar that is rarely met in marketplace enforcement cases.
Defences waivedSchedule A tactics signal escalating design patent enforcement in consumer electronics
Dyson’s use of consolidated Schedule A litigation against multiple marketplace sellers is a practised enforcement strategy in the N.D. Illinois. The swift default judgment reinforces that design patents on consumer electronics accessories carry real litigation risk for third-party sellers. Competing battery pack manufacturers and online resellers operating in Dyson’s product categories should treat USD710299S as an active enforcement threat with demonstrated judicial backing.
Elevated marketplace IP riskFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Dyson Technology Limited | Individual | UK-based consumer electronics company — holder of USD710299S battery pack design patentSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A | Individual | 40+ online marketplace sellers accused of selling infringing Dyson battery pack replicasSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | mei zhenshop | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | akku-mall2016 | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Cerman-US | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | CS Cameron Sino Battery | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Epowon | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Hubei electronic | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Others too numerous to list: energy-up-2020, hailing shop, IASOBLI US, Sungotech, XIONG GE, ASUNCELL, tangavi, SBY-SZ, yun yun shop, EGR Digital, LordPower, borraymond, zgh123, Yongcell, NinsoneUS, chocolate_chip_part, smallgrocery002, GDLIFE, Swidan01, adapbat, one_more_battery, premiumbattery2021, tejieying, yunfeng shop, SZJS, Lordone-US, SHIQ, zhengyunUS, XHS-BATTERY, Chida Store, Mikyo-US, power-tool-batteries, XJK-US, YCDZ-US, hsh-008, LongLingBattery, ZHEAIUS, LJO-EEIH INC, ANZOOM | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | RL Direct | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | simlewareUS | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | XIangYuan | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Andrew Daniel Burnham | Attorney | Counsel for Dyson Technology LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jennifer Van Nacht | 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 counsel | Marcella Deshonda Slay | 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 John Robert Blakey | Judge | Illinois Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s entry of default judgment ‘on the merits’ is legally significant — it is not a procedural termination but a substantive finding that Dyson’s infringement allegations are deemed admitted. The phrase ‘all matters in dispute now having been resolved’ confirms no outstanding claims remain. For design patent enforcement purposes, this judgment is as binding as a verdict reached after trial, and Dyson may seek to register and enforce it against the defendants’ assets and platform accounts.
USD710299S — Ornamental design for a battery pack
USD710299S (application number US29/464509) is a United States design patent protecting the ornamental appearance of a battery pack — the visual configuration, shape, and surface design of the unit rather than its functional characteristics. Design patents of this type grant the holder the exclusive right to the patented appearance as applied to the specified article, making them particularly effective against manufacturers producing visually similar replacement or counterfeit products for popular consumer appliance brands.
For Dyson, whose cordless vacuum and appliance lines depend on proprietary battery packs as both functional and branded components, design patent protection serves a dual commercial purpose: preventing counterfeit accessory sales that erode revenue and protecting brand integrity against substandard replicas. The enforcement of USD710299S against over 40 marketplace sellers demonstrates the patent’s active commercial relevance and signals that Dyson treats design IP as a front-line enforcement asset, not merely a defensive holding.
Should your team run an FTO against USD710299S?
Any company designing, manufacturing, importing, or reselling battery packs that could be used with Dyson cordless appliances — or that share visual design characteristics with Dyson’s battery pack form factor — faces potential exposure under USD710299S. This applies to third-party accessory makers, OEM battery suppliers, and marketplace resellers alike. Given Dyson’s demonstrated willingness to pursue coordinated multi-defendant actions in the N.D. Illinois, the risk of being named in a future Schedule A complaint is material for sellers in this product category.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent allows R&D and product teams to run structured freedom-to-operate searches against USD710299S and related design patent families. Eureka can map the visual claim scope, identify continuation or related design applications filed by Dyson, and flag products in your portfolio that may fall within the ornamental claim perimeter — helping you make clearance decisions before market launch or before accepting third-party battery pack inventory.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USD0710299S to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar battery pack design patent cases in N.D. Illinois
Cases involving consumer electronics design patents and Schedule A marketplace enforcement in the Northern District of Illinois, similar in structure and outcome to Dyson’s USD710299S action.
What this case signals for the consumer electronics IP landscape
Dyson’s rapid default judgment demonstrates that coordinated Schedule A actions remain one of the most efficient enforcement tools available to consumer electronics IP owners.
N.D. Illinois Schedule A actions deliver fast, low-resistance outcomes
This case resolved in 161 days with a full merits judgment — no trial, no contested motions from defendants. For IP owners with design patents on physical consumer products, the Northern District of Illinois remains a preferred venue for consolidated multi-seller enforcement, particularly where defendants operate anonymously through marketplace storefronts.
Design patents on accessories are an underutilised enforcement lever
USD710299S covers the ornamental appearance of a battery pack — a product category that attracts high counterfeit volume. This case confirms that design patents, often overlooked in favour of utility patents, can form the basis of successful, expedited enforcement actions against dozens of infringers simultaneously with limited litigation cost.
Limited v Partnerships — key questions answered
The Northern District of Illinois entered a default judgment on the merits in favour of Dyson Technology Limited on 26 June 2024. No defendant appeared to contest the motion. The case was closed the same day, 161 days after filing.
Dyson asserted USD710299S (application no. US29/464509), a US design patent protecting the ornamental appearance of a battery pack. Design patents protect visual configuration rather than functional features, making them actionable against products sharing a substantially similar appearance.
A Schedule A action consolidates claims against multiple anonymous or pseudonymous online marketplace sellers into a single complaint. Plaintiffs list defendants by their marketplace storefront names rather than legal entities. This approach is common in the Northern District of Illinois and is used to efficiently pursue large numbers of infringing sellers — often based overseas — in a single coordinated proceeding, frequently alongside early TRO and asset freeze applications.
A default judgment on the merits means the court accepted the plaintiff’s well-pleaded infringement allegations as admitted, without a trial. Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 55, it is entered when defendants fail to appear or respond. Unlike a procedural dismissal, it is a substantive ruling binding on all named defendants, enabling the patent holder to enforce it through asset seizures, platform de-listing, and damages collection.
A defaulted defendant may seek to vacate the judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b), but must demonstrate good cause, a meritorious defence, and absence of prejudice to the plaintiff. In marketplace enforcement actions where defendants are overseas online sellers who failed to appear, courts rarely grant such relief. The standard is high, and Dyson’s judgment is likely to stand.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.