Case Overview

Introduction

In a swift 57-day enforcement action, Dyson Technology Limited secured a decisive default judgment against dozens of anonymous e-commerce sellers operating across major online marketplaces, including Amazon, eBay, DHgate, and Temu. Filed on February 26, 2024, and closed April 23, 2024, Case No. 1:24-cv-01587 (N.D. Ill.) resulted in permanent injunctions, asset freezes, and profit disgorgement awards totaling over $78,000 against 37 defaulting defendants.

The case centers on Dyson’s U.S. Design Patent USD853,642 — covering the distinctive ornamental design of its hair styling and hair care apparatus — and underscores a well-established but increasingly aggressive litigation strategy: using the Illinois Northern District Court’s Schedule A process to simultaneously pursue large numbers of offshore counterfeiters selling knockoff products on U.S.-facing e-commerce platforms.

For patent attorneys, IP professionals, and R&D teams operating in the consumer electronics and personal care appliance space, this case offers critical lessons in design patent enforcement, cross-border jurisdiction, and online marketplace liability.

The Parties

The Patent at Issue

This case centered on Dyson’s U.S. Design Patent USD853,642, which protects the distinctive ornamental design of its hair styling and hair care apparatus. Design patents are registered with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and protect ornamental appearance rather than functional technology.

• • US D853,642 — Ornamental design of a hair styling and hair care apparatus

Under 35 U.S.C. § 289, a successful design patent infringement plaintiff is entitled to recover total profits from an infringer’s sales — a powerful and often underutilized remedy compared to utility patent damages.

The Verdict & Legal Analysis

Litigation Timeline & Procedural History

The **Illinois Northern District Court** is a preferred venue for Schedule A patent enforcement actions due to its procedural familiarity with these cases and established precedent for granting ex parte TROs and asset restraining orders against anonymous overseas defendants. The case was presided over by **Chief Judge Lindsay C. Jenkins**.

The 57-day resolution reflects the efficiency achievable when defendants fail to appear — enabling plaintiffs to move directly from TRO to default judgment without contested briefing or discovery. Service was effectuated via electronic publication and email, a method courts have consistently upheld as constitutionally adequate for e-commerce defendants who transact digitally.

Outcome

The court **granted Dyson’s Motion for Default and Default Judgment in its entirety** on April 23, 2024. Key relief awarded:

• Permanent injunction prohibiting all defendants from offering, selling, or importing the infringing product
• Platform takedown orders requiring Amazon, eBay, DHgate, Temu, Walmart, Wish.com, Etsy, and others to disable defendant storefronts within 7 days
• Asset freeze and disgorgement of profits held by third-party payment processors including PayPal, Alipay, Amazon Pay, and Ant Financial
• Profit awards under 35 U.S.C. § 289, ranging from $250 to $16,804 per defendant, totaling over $78,000.

The $250 floor award for lower-volume sellers reflects a practical damages floor commonly applied in Schedule A default judgments when sales data is limited.

Verdict Cause Analysis

The court’s jurisdiction finding rested on defendants’ active commercial targeting of U.S. consumers — accepting USD payments, offering U.S. shipping, and operating storefronts accessible to Illinois residents. This satisfies the **minimum contacts** standard under International Shoe and follows well-settled N.D. Ill. precedent in Schedule A cases.

Liability under **35 U.S.C. § 271** was established by default upon defendants’ failure to answer. The court compared the accused hair styling devices against the Dyson Design’s patent figures using the **ordinary observer test** (Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, Inc., 543 F.3d 665 (Fed. Cir. 2008)), the controlling standard for design patent infringement.

The strategic use of **35 U.S.C. § 289** — which awards total infringer profits rather than reasonable royalty or lost profits — is particularly significant here. Unlike utility patent damages, § 289 requires no apportionment, making it a powerful tool for design patent holders against counterfeiters.