Dyson Technology v. Schedule A Defendants: Default Judgment in 85 Days
Dyson Technology Limited secured a default judgment and permanent injunction against a network of anonymous e-commerce sellers on Amazon and Walmart accused of copying its patented hair styler designs. The court awarded infringer profits under 35 U.S.C. § 289 and ordered fund freezes across third-party payment processors — all resolved within 85 days of filing.
Dyson’s design patent blitz against anonymous online counterfeiters
Dyson Technology Limited filed this action on September 11, 2025 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois before Judge Thomas M. Durkin. The defendants — identified only as ‘Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations on Schedule A’ — operated anonymous e-commerce storefronts on Amazon and Walmart, selling hair styling products alleged to copy the ornamental designs protected by Dyson’s U.S. Design Patent Nos. USD852,415 and USD853,642.
The case closed on December 5, 2025 via default judgment, the court having found that none of the defendants answered or appeared. Judge Durkin entered a permanent injunction barring the defendants from selling, offering for sale, or importing the infringing products. Under 35 U.S.C. § 289, Dyson was awarded the defendants’ entire profits from infringing sales, with third-party platforms — including Amazon, Walmart, and PayPal — ordered to freeze and release funds to Dyson within seven to fourteen days of the order.
The 85-day resolution is consistent with the compressed timelines Dyson and similar brand owners achieve in Schedule A default proceedings, where defendants typically do not surface to contest the claims. What remains unknown from the public record is the total monetary recovery: individual per-defendant profit amounts are listed in a schedule attached to the judgment rather than a single aggregate figure. The use of a $2,000 surety bond and electronic service via email and publication reflects the standard procedural toolkit for these cross-border, anonymous-defendant cases.
Filing to Default Judgment in 85 days
85 days — faster than the typical Schedule A enforcement timeline of 6–12 months
Default judgment granted: what the ruling means for both parties
Default judgment: allegations become admitted facts
When defendants fail to appear or respond, the court may enter default judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 55. Here, Judge Durkin found service properly effected via email and electronic publication — a method routinely accepted in Schedule A cases. All allegations in Dyson’s complaint were deemed admitted, removing any requirement for Dyson to prove infringement at trial. The court then assessed the appropriate remedy based on uncontested evidence.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 55 defaultPermanent injunction and full profit disgorgement secured
Dyson obtained a permanent injunction, disgorgement of infringer profits under 35 U.S.C. § 289, and direct release of frozen funds held by Amazon, Walmart, and PayPal. The § 289 remedy is powerful for design patent holders: it captures the defendant’s total profits attributable to the infringing article — not just a reasonable royalty. Dyson also retains authority to commence supplemental collection proceedings if full recovery is not achieved from frozen accounts.
§ 289 total profit disgorgementOnline stores shuttered, accounts frozen, no recourse remaining
The defaulting defendants face permanent account suspension across Amazon and Walmart, advertising takedowns, and asset freezes. Because judgment was entered without appearance, defendants forfeited the opportunity to contest validity, claim independent design, or negotiate settlement. Any funds held in associated PayPal, Amazon, or Walmart accounts up to the awarded damages are released directly to Dyson. Defendants can theoretically seek to vacate the default, but the procedural bar is high.
Permanent platform banDesign patents as a fast enforcement tool in e-commerce markets
This outcome reinforces the commercial utility of design patents for consumer product brands targeting grey-market and counterfeit sellers on large online platforms. The combination of a preliminary injunction, TRO-style account freezing, and § 289 profit disgorgement creates significant deterrence. Competing hair styling brands and platform sellers should note that Dyson’s design portfolio is actively and rapidly enforced — ornamental similarity to USD852,415 or USD853,642 carries real litigation risk.
Design patent enforcement riskFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Dyson Technology Limited | Individual | Consumer electronics and personal care brand — holder of USD852,415 and USD853,642Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A | Individual | Anonymous e-commerce sellers operating on Amazon and Walmart under undisclosed seller aliasesSearch 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 counsel | Luana Faria De Souza | Attorney | Counsel for Dyson Technology LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Lucas Allen Peterson | Attorney | Counsel for Dyson Technology LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Thomas Joseph Juettner | 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 Thomas M. Durkin | Judge | Illinois Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The default judgment is comprehensive in scope: the court did not merely enter liability but simultaneously imposed a permanent injunction, profit disgorgement, and operational directives binding third-party platforms. The invocation of 35 U.S.C. § 289 is particularly significant — this statute entitles the design patent holder to the infringer’s total profits from the infringing article, without the apportionment analysis required in utility patent cases. Because no defendant appeared, the factual record is entirely Dyson’s, meaning the damages schedule reflects plaintiff-submitted profit evidence that went unchallenged.
USD852,415 & USD853,642 — Dyson ornamental hair styling product designs
U.S. Design Patent Nos. USD852,415 and USD853,642, filed as application Nos. 29/627707 and 29/627749, protect the ornamental appearance of Dyson’s hair styling products. Design patents under 35 U.S.C. § 171 cover the visual, non-functional characteristics of a manufactured article. The sequential application numbers suggest these two patents were filed within the same prosecution campaign, likely tied to a single product generation — consistent with Dyson’s practice of filing multiple design applications capturing different angles or variants of a single product.
For Dyson, design patents on hair styling tools are a front-line commercial asset. The Dyson Airwrap and Supersonic product lines command significant retail premiums, making their distinctive silhouettes high-value IP targets. Registering ornamental features prevents copycat sellers from trading on Dyson’s visual identity in e-commerce search results. The aggressive enforcement record here — with permanent injunctions obtained in under 90 days — suggests Dyson treats these design registrations as an active market exclusion tool, not merely a defensive portfolio element.
Should you run an FTO against USD852,415 and USD853,642?
Any company designing, manufacturing, or distributing hair styling appliances — particularly cordless stylers, air-wrap devices, or hair dryers with distinctive cylindrical or wrap-around barrel designs — should conduct a design patent freedom-to-operate analysis against Dyson’s U.S. design portfolio. Ornamental similarity is assessed from the perspective of an ordinary observer, meaning even non-identical products can infringe if the overall visual impression is substantially similar. E-commerce sellers on Amazon or Walmart face elevated risk given Dyson’s demonstrated willingness to pursue rapid default judgments.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent allows product teams to map their device’s visual design against registered design patents in the personal care appliance space. By uploading product renders or images, R&D and IP teams can identify potentially conflicting Dyson design registrations — including continuations and related family members not yet surfaced in standard patent searches — before committing to a product launch or marketplace listing.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USD0852415S to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar design patent enforcement cases: hair care appliances
Explore related Schedule A design patent cases in the personal care appliance sector litigated in the Northern District of Illinois.
Related patent case — similar technology
Comparable case in the same technology domain. Patent holder and defendant reached resolution after proceedings.
SettledRelated infringement action — same court
Comparable Dyson Products(hair stylers and hair dryers, as well as a variety of other products)-adjacent infringement action. Patent enforcement dynamics analysed in depth.
Active · District CourtRelated invalidity challenge — appellate outcome
Combined invalidity and infringement action in the same technology space. Decided after substantive proceedings.
DecidedDyson Technology Limited’s broader IP enforcement history
Dyson Technology Limited’s full litigation history covering prior enforcement, licensing activity, and inter partes review proceedings.
Portfolio viewWhat this case signals for the consumer electronics IP landscape
Dyson’s 85-day enforcement cycle demonstrates how design patents can function as rapid takedown instruments against e-commerce infringers.
Design patents under § 289 deliver stronger remedies than utility patents
Unlike utility patent damages, which require apportionment, § 289 awards the infringer’s entire profits on the infringing article. For consumer product brands, this makes design patents a commercially superior enforcement tool when counterfeit physical products are at issue — particularly against defendants with no incentive to appear and contest damages.
Schedule A filings compress timelines through procedural design
The Northern District of Illinois’s familiarity with Schedule A cases — combined with electronic service, preliminary asset freezes, and platform cooperation from Amazon and Walmart — allows brand owners to achieve binding outcomes in under 90 days. Companies monitoring competitive markets should treat these proceedings as near-automated enforcement events rather than traditional litigation.
How Dyson’s design patent portfolio maps to product launch windows
USD852,415 and USD853,642 were filed as application Nos. 29/627707 and 29/627749, suggesting coordinated prosecution around a single product generation. Tracking prosecution timelines against Dyson’s commercial launch calendar reveals a deliberate protection strategy that competitors in the hair care appliance sector should model — and monitor for continuation filings.
Third-party platform liability exposure after fund-freeze orders
The court’s order binding Amazon, Walmart, and PayPal as Third Party Providers with actual notice creates compliance obligations those platforms must act on within seven days. Companies relying on these platforms for distribution should assess their own design clearance posture — a single ornamental similarity finding can trigger account suspension across all major U.S. marketplaces simultaneously.
Limited v Partnerships — key questions answered
Dyson asserted U.S. Design Patent Nos. USD852,415 (application 29/627707) and USD853,642 (application 29/627749), both covering the ornamental design of Dyson hair styling products. The court found that the defendants’ hair styling products infringed both design patents.
Judge Durkin approved service via electronic publication and email, a method commonly accepted in Schedule A cases involving anonymous e-commerce defendants. The court found this combination was reasonably calculated to provide notice and an opportunity to respond, satisfying due process requirements.
Section 289 entitles a design patent holder to recover the infringer’s total profits from the sale of articles bearing the infringing design, without apportionment to the patented feature. This is a stronger remedy than utility patent damages. In this case, Dyson was awarded all profits each defaulting defendant earned from selling the infringing hair styling products.
Yes. The default judgment expressly named Amazon and Walmart as Third Party Providers with actual notice of the order. Both platforms were directed to cease operating infringing stores, disable advertising, and freeze and release to Dyson any funds held for defaulting defendants within the timeframes specified in the judgment (7–14 days).
Defaulting defendants can seek to vacate a default judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b), but the standard is demanding — they must demonstrate good cause, a meritorious defense, and lack of culpable conduct. Given that none appeared during the 85-day proceeding, a successful vacatur motion would be procedurally difficult and is uncommon in Schedule A enforcement actions.
Protect your hair care product designs before the next Dyson filing
Run a design patent FTO against Dyson’s personal care appliance portfolio before your next product launch. PatSnap Eureka tracks new filings, enforcement actions, and platform injunctions across the hair styling appliance sector in real time.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.