Dyson Technology v. Schedule A Sellers: Default Judgment on Battery Pack Design Patent
Dyson Technology Limited secured a default judgment and permanent injunction against anonymous online marketplace defendants accused of selling counterfeit battery packs infringing design patent USD710299S. The court ordered profit disgorgement and directed major platforms — including Amazon, Alibaba, and TikTok Shop — to freeze and release defendant funds within seven days.
Dyson wins default judgment against counterfeit battery pack sellers
On 14 August 2024, Dyson Technology Limited filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against a class of anonymous defendants — the ‘Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A’ — alleging infringement of design patent USD710299S, which protects the ornamental design of Dyson’s battery packs. The defendants were operating storefronts across major e-commerce platforms including Amazon, AliExpress, eBay, Walmart, Etsy, Temu, TikTok, and DHgate.
The case concluded on 26 August 2025 via default judgment after the defendants failed to appear or respond. Judge Andrea R. Wood granted Dyson’s motion and entered a permanent injunction barring defendants from offering, selling, or importing the infringing product. Under 35 U.S.C. § 289, the court awarded disgorgement of the defendants’ profits from sales of the infringing battery packs, with third-party payment processors and platforms ordered to freeze and release connected funds to Dyson within seven days.
The 377-day duration is consistent with Schedule A default actions in N.D. Illinois, where plaintiffs typically obtain TROs before proceeding to default. The outcome suggests that the defendants either lacked resources to mount a defence or chose not to contest, which is characteristic of counterfeit marketplace litigation. The precise aggregate profit award per defendant is detailed in a Schedule A chart appended to the judgment — that figure is not publicly disclosed in the summary record available here.
Filing to Default Judgment in 377 days
377 days from filing to default judgment — typical for uncontested Schedule A actions in N.D. Ill.
Default judgment entered: what the ruling means for both parties
Default judgment — no defence entered, liability deemed admitted
A default judgment is entered when a defendant fails to appear or respond to a complaint. Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 55, the court accepted Dyson’s well-pleaded allegations as true. Liability for design patent infringement was deemed admitted, bypassing a merits trial. This is a standard outcome in N.D. Illinois Schedule A counterfeit actions where defendants are anonymous overseas marketplace sellers.
Uncontested liabilityDyson secures permanent injunction and profit disgorgement
Dyson obtained the strongest available civil remedy: a permanent injunction and disgorgement of all profits under 35 U.S.C. § 289 — a design-patent-specific provision that entitles the patent holder to the infringer’s total profits from the infringing article. Platform operators and payment processors are compelled to freeze and transfer defendant funds, giving Dyson a direct enforcement mechanism against marketplace accounts.
§ 289 total profit disgorgementDefendants permanently banned from selling infringing product
All defaulting defendants are permanently enjoined from selling, offering, or importing the infringing battery pack product. Their online marketplace accounts and associated financial accounts are frozen. The injunction extends to any new entities or accounts created to circumvent the order. Practically, any funds held by Amazon, Alibaba, PayPal, TikTok, or Temu linked to the seller aliases are subject to immediate release to Dyson.
Permanent platform banPlatform enforcement orders set a replicable precedent for Dyson
The order’s architecture — naming Amazon, Alibaba, Temu, TikTok, eBay, Walmart, Etsy, and DHgate as enforcement intermediaries — reflects the N.D. Illinois model for coordinated marketplace takedowns. Dyson retains ongoing authority to serve the order on newly identified accounts, creating a durable enforcement tool. For competitors and brand owners in consumer electronics, this judgment illustrates the operational value of design patent registration combined with Schedule A litigation strategy.
Multi-platform enforcement modelFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Dyson Technology Limited | Individual | Global consumer technology company — holder of design patent USD710299S for battery pack designSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A | Individual | Anonymous online marketplace sellers operating under pseudonymous seller aliases across global e-commerce platformsSearch 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 Andrea R. Wood | Judge | Illinois Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The default judgment is broad in both injunctive and financial scope. The permanent injunction encompasses not only direct sale and importation but also aiding, abetting, and entity reformation — a standard anti-circumvention clause in N.D. Illinois Schedule A orders. The § 289 profit award is defendant-specific (itemised in a Schedule A chart), which allows Dyson to pursue proportionate recovery from each seller. The order’s direction to named third-party platforms to act within seven calendar days reflects the court’s recognition that speed of enforcement is essential when defendants are anonymous overseas actors.
USD710299S — Dyson battery pack ornamental design
USD710299S (U.S. application no. 29/464509) is a U.S. design patent protecting the ornamental appearance of a Dyson battery pack. Design patents cover the visual, non-functional aesthetic of an article of manufacture — not its underlying technology. The ‘ordinary observer’ test governs infringement: a product infringes if an ordinary observer, familiar with the prior art, would mistake it for the patented design. For a widely recognised consumer brand like Dyson, the ornamental design of accessory components carries significant commercial identity value.
Dyson’s battery packs power its flagship cordless vacuum and personal care product lines — some of the most counterfeited consumer electronics categories globally. A valid design patent on the battery pack form factor gives Dyson a platform-agnostic enforcement tool: the visual similarity standard is easier to demonstrate at scale than utility patent claim construction, making it particularly effective in marketplace litigation. Any third-party seller manufacturing or distributing replacement battery packs that replicate the Dyson visual profile should treat USD710299S as an active enforcement risk.
Should you run an FTO analysis against USD710299S?
Any manufacturer, importer, or online seller offering aftermarket or compatible battery packs for Dyson cordless products should consider a freedom-to-operate analysis against USD710299S. The risk is not theoretical: this case demonstrates that Dyson actively enforces this design patent, pursues asset freezes through major marketplaces, and seeks disgorgement of total profits. The ‘ordinary observer’ standard means that visual resemblance — not component identity — is the primary infringement test.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the visual claim scope of USD710299S against your product’s design profile, identify prior art that may narrow the enforceable scope, and surface related Dyson design patent filings in the same product family. Eureka’s portfolio monitoring tools can also alert your team to new Dyson design patent applications in the battery pack and accessories space, giving R&D and product teams advance notice before a design reaches market.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USD0710299S to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar design patent cases: Schedule A counterfeit actions in N.D. Illinois
Cases comparable to Dyson v. Schedule A Sellers: design patent default judgments against anonymous marketplace sellers in the Northern District of Illinois, consumer electronics sector.
What this case signals for the consumer electronics IP landscape
Dyson’s win confirms design patents as enforceable anti-counterfeiting tools against anonymous marketplace sellers.
Design patents under § 289 are uniquely powerful against counterfeiters
Unlike utility patent damages — which require apportionment — § 289 awards the infringer’s total article profits to a design patent holder. For consumer electronics brands facing marketplace counterfeiting, a registered design patent combined with a Schedule A filing in N.D. Illinois represents one of the most financially recoverable litigation strategies available.
Schedule A actions let brand owners act before defendants can hide assets
By obtaining a TRO at the outset, plaintiffs can freeze marketplace accounts before defendants are notified. Dyson’s use of this mechanism — directing platforms to act within seven days — demonstrates how quickly asset preservation can be achieved. Any brand with registered design IP selling on global marketplaces should evaluate this enforcement template.
Limited v Partnerships — key questions answered
The default judgment was entered under Fed. R. Civ. P. 55 after the Schedule A defendants failed to appear or respond to the complaint. Judge Andrea R. Wood granted Dyson’s motion, deeming liability for design patent infringement admitted and awarding profits under 35 U.S.C. § 289.
Section 289 entitles a design patent holder to the infringer’s total profits from the sale of the infringing article, without the apportionment requirement that applies to utility patent damages. In this case, Dyson is awarded the total profits each defaulting defendant earned from selling the infringing battery packs, as itemised in the Schedule A chart appended to the judgment.
The order named Amazon, AliExpress, Alibaba, eBay, Walmart, Etsy, Temu (WhaleCo), TikTok (ByteDance/TikTok Ltd/TikTok Inc/TikTok LLC), DHgate, PayPal, Alipay, Ant Financial, and Wish.com as third-party providers required to freeze and release defendant funds and disable listings within seven days of notice.
The asserted patent is USD710299S (U.S. application no. 29/464509), a U.S. design patent protecting the ornamental design of Dyson’s battery pack. Design patents cover the visual appearance of a product rather than its functional features.
Yes. The order expressly grants Dyson ongoing authority to serve the judgment on third-party providers in the event new financial accounts or marketplace listings controlled by the defaulting defendants are identified. The injunction also prohibits defendants from forming new entities or associations to circumvent the order’s prohibitions.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.