Dyson Technology Ltd. v. Schedule A Defendants — Default Judgment in 80 Days
Dyson Technology Limited secured a swift default judgment against 30+ China-based e-commerce sellers across platforms including Amazon, Temu, and DHgate for infringing U.S. Design Patent D715,996 covering its hair dryer design. The court awarded disgorgement of defendants’ profits and issued a permanent injunction — all within 80 days of filing.
Dyson’s rapid enforcement against counterfeit e-commerce hair dryer sellers
On September 17, 2024, Dyson Technology Limited filed suit in the Northern District of Illinois against dozens of e-commerce storefronts operating under pseudonymous seller aliases on platforms including Amazon, AliExpress, Temu, TikTok Shop, and DHgate. The single patent at issue — U.S. Design Patent No. D715,996 — covers the ornamental appearance of Dyson’s hair dryer, and Dyson alleged that each defendant was selling a visually infringing product targeting U.S. consumers, including Illinois residents.
None of the defendants appeared or filed an answer, enabling Dyson to move for entry of default and default judgment under the Schedule A enforcement model commonly used in the Northern District of Illinois. Judge Mary M. Rowland granted Dyson’s motion in full on December 6, 2024, entering a permanent injunction barring defendants from selling, importing, or otherwise dealing in the infringing product, and ordering disgorgement of each defendant’s profits under 35 U.S.C. § 289 — a design-patent-specific remedy that does not require apportionment to patented features.
The 80-day resolution is consistent with the accelerated pace typical of Schedule A default actions, where TROs, asset freezes via payment processors, and electronic service combine to resolve cases before defendants can engage. The total profit disgorgement exceeded $120,000 across 30 named entities, with the largest single award of $51,947 against Shenzhen Onuliss Technology Co. What remains unknown is whether any restrained funds were actually recovered, as payment processor balances at the time of freeze may have been insufficient to satisfy the awards in full.
Filing to Default Judgment in 80 days
80 days from filing to final judgment — well below the district court median of 2+ years for contested patent cases
Default judgment entered: permanent injunction and profit disgorgement awarded
Default judgment: plaintiff wins without a merits contest
When defendants fail to answer or appear, the court may enter a default judgment treating the complaint’s well-pleaded allegations as admitted. Here, all named defendants failed to respond, enabling Judge Rowland to find patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271 and grant Dyson’s requested relief in full. Default judgment in Schedule A cases is a structured enforcement tool — not a concession on the merits by defendants who simply chose not to engage.
35 U.S.C. § 271 — infringement foundDyson obtains permanent injunction and full profit disgorgement
Dyson achieved its primary enforcement objectives: a permanent injunction barring the defendants and their affiliates from selling or importing the infringing product, mandatory takedown obligations on major platforms within seven days, and release of frozen funds from payment processors as partial satisfaction of the damages award. The surety bond of $30,000 was also returned to Dyson’s counsel.
Permanent injunction grantedSellers face frozen accounts and marketplace bans
By failing to appear, all 30+ defendants are bound by a final judgment they never contested. Their financial accounts across PayPal, Alipay, Amazon Pay, and other processors are frozen up to the award amount. Third-party platforms including Amazon, Temu, TikTok Shop, and eBay are obligated to disable associated storefronts within seven days of receiving the order — effectively eliminating these sellers’ U.S. market access.
Asset freeze across major platformsDesign patent § 289 disgorgement: a powerful deterrent
Under 35 U.S.C. § 289, design patent infringers owe the patent holder their entire profits from the infringing article — without the need to apportion to the patented design. This makes design patent enforcement disproportionately powerful against low-margin e-commerce sellers. Awards here ranged from $250 to $51,947 per defendant, reflecting each seller’s actual reported sales — a structure that incentivises Dyson to pursue even small-volume infringers.
§ 289 total profit disgorgementFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Dyson Technology Limited | Individual | Global consumer electronics company — holder of U.S. Design Patent D715,996Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A | Individual | 30+ pseudonymous China-based e-commerce sellers on major online marketplacesSearch 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 Mary M. Rowland | Judge | Illinois Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s default judgment finding is explicitly grounded in 35 U.S.C. § 271 (direct infringement) and § 289 (disgorgement of infringer’s profits for design patent violations). By accepting Dyson’s well-pleaded allegations as admitted, the court did not conduct a claim construction analysis or apply the ordinary observer test on the merits — the finding of infringement rests on procedural default. This means the judgment carries less precedential weight on the scope of D715,996 than a contested ruling would, but the permanent injunction and asset freeze orders are fully enforceable against all named defendants.
USD0715996S — Dyson hair dryer ornamental design
U.S. Design Patent No. D715,996 (application no. 29/485,993) protects the ornamental appearance of a Dyson hair dryer. Design patents cover how a product looks — not how it works — and are infringed when an ordinary observer would believe the accused product is the same as the patented design. The patent’s visual claim encompasses the distinctive cylindrical form factor, proportions, and surface treatment associated with Dyson’s flagship hair dryer line.
Dyson’s hair dryer design is one of the most recognisable consumer electronics silhouettes globally, making it a high-value enforcement asset. The fact that 30+ independent sellers were found to be selling visually similar products suggests the design occupies a commercially significant aesthetic space in the mass-market hair care segment. For OEM suppliers and private-label brands developing hair care appliances for U.S. distribution, D715,996 represents a meaningful clearance risk that warrants formal FTO assessment before product launch.
Should you run an FTO against USD0715996S before launching a hair dryer?
Any company developing, manufacturing, or importing hair dryers — particularly those with cylindrical, high-speed brushless motor designs — should treat Dyson’s D715,996 as a priority clearance item. This case demonstrates that Dyson actively monitors e-commerce channels and is willing to pursue even low-volume sellers. An FTO assessment is especially urgent for brands selling on Amazon, Temu, AliExpress, or TikTok Shop, where product listings are directly visible to Dyson’s enforcement monitoring tools.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the visual claim scope of D715,996 against your product’s design drawings, identify the filing date and expiry timeline, flag related Dyson design patent families, and surface prior art that may limit the enforceable scope of the design. Eureka can also identify other Dyson design registrations covering adjacent product lines — giving your product and legal teams a complete picture of the IP landscape before committing to tooling or market entry.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USD0715996S to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar design patent enforcement cases in the N.D. Illinois e-commerce context
Explore comparable Schedule A default judgment actions in the Northern District of Illinois involving consumer electronics and design patent infringement on online marketplaces.
What this case signals for the consumer electronics IP enforcement landscape
Dyson’s Schedule A campaign illustrates how design patent holders can rapidly neutralise e-commerce counterfeiting rings across multiple platforms simultaneously.
Schedule A enforcement is now a standard playbook for design patent holders
The Northern District of Illinois has become the preferred venue for multi-defendant e-commerce enforcement actions. TROs, asset freezes, and electronic service combine to resolve cases in weeks rather than years. Any brand holding a design patent over a consumer product should assess whether active infringement on platforms like Amazon or Temu warrants a Schedule A filing.
§ 289 disgorgement removes the apportionment barrier for design patents
Unlike utility patent damages, design patent plaintiffs claiming under § 289 need not apportion profits to the patented design — the entire article’s profits are at stake. This makes design patents a commercially superior enforcement tool against copycat product sellers, particularly when infringing products are sold as near-identical substitutes for the patented design.
Limited v Partnerships — key questions answered
U.S. Design Patent D715,996, filed as application 29/485,993, protects the ornamental appearance of a Dyson hair dryer. In case 1:24-cv-08547, the court found that 30+ e-commerce defendants sold a product that infringed this design, resulting in a default judgment with permanent injunction and profit disgorgement under 35 U.S.C. § 289.
Dyson used the Northern District of Illinois’s Schedule A enforcement procedure, which allows a plaintiff to name multiple pseudonymous e-commerce sellers, obtain an ex parte TRO with asset freeze, serve defendants electronically, and move for default judgment if defendants fail to appear. None of the defendants answered, allowing the court to enter final judgment on December 6, 2024.
The court awarded disgorgement of each defendant’s profits under 35 U.S.C. § 289. Individual awards ranged from $250 to $51,947 (Shenzhen Onuliss Technology Co.). The total across all 30+ defendants exceeded $120,000. Frozen funds held by payment processors including PayPal, Amazon Pay, Alipay, and others were ordered released to Dyson within seven days.
Section 289 provides a design patent-specific damages remedy: the infringer’s entire profit from sale of the infringing article, without apportionment. Unlike utility patent damages, there is no requirement to isolate the contribution of the patented design to the product’s value. This makes § 289 a commercially powerful enforcement tool against copycat consumer product sellers, particularly in low-margin e-commerce markets.
No. Because the judgment was entered on default — with defendants failing to appear — the court accepted Dyson’s infringement allegations as admitted without conducting a formal claim construction or ordinary observer test analysis. The ruling is enforceable against the named defendants but does not constitute a merits adjudication on the scope of D715,996 that would bind future courts or parties.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.