Dyson Wins Default Judgment in Design Patent Counterfeiting Case
What would you like to do next?
Choose your path based on your current needs:
📋 Case Summary
| Case Name | Dyson Technology Limited v. Schedule A Defendants |
| Case Number | 1:25-cv-10216 (N.D. Ill.) |
| Court | U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois |
| Duration | Aug 2025 – Jan 2026 135 days |
| Outcome | Plaintiff Win — $1.18M+ Damages |
| Patents at Issue | |
| Accused Products | Counterfeit battery packs (replicating patented design) |
Case Overview
In a swift enforcement action resolved in just 135 days, Dyson Technology Limited secured a landmark default judgment of over $1.18 million against a network of anonymous e-commerce sellers operating across Amazon, Walmart, and PayPal-enabled storefronts. The January 8, 2026, ruling by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Case No. 1:25-cv-10216, stands as a decisive victory in design patent infringement litigation targeting counterfeit battery pack products.
The Parties
⚖️ Plaintiff
UK-headquartered IP holding entity within the Dyson Group, globally recognized for premium consumer electronics and home appliances. Maintains a robust design and utility patent portfolio.
🛡️ Defendants
A collection of anonymous e-commerce storefronts operating under aliases including CHANJOYH, Ronsineraay, SingalieStone, Songshen Trading, Yuestaeserfly, and others, characteristic of Schedule A litigation against overseas counterfeiters.
The Patent at Issue
The sole patent at issue is U.S. Design Patent No. D710,299 (Application No. 29/464,509), issued **August 5, 2014**, covering the ornamental design of a battery pack. Design patents protect the unique visual appearance of a product — not its function — and are enforceable against products that are substantially similar to the eye of an ordinary observer.
The infringing products were battery packs sold through e-commerce marketplaces that replicated the protected ornamental design of Dyson’s patented product. These items were sold to U.S. consumers, including Illinois residents, with pricing and shipping configurations targeting the domestic market.
Worried about counterfeits of your design?
Identify and track infringers online with PatSnap Eureka’s enforcement tools.
The Verdict & Legal Analysis
Outcome
The court entered final default judgment in favor of Dyson Technology Limited, granting the full motion in its entirety. Total damages awarded across ten defendants reached approximately $1,476,259.17, with individual awards ranging from $250.00 to $357,874.73.
The disparity between high-revenue defendants (Yuestaeserfly at $357K+) and nominal-award defendants ($250 minimum) reflects the variation in actual sales volume captured from restrained financial accounts across platforms.
Damages Basis: Section 289 Profits Disgorgement
Critically, damages were awarded under 35 U.S.C. § 289, which entitles design patent holders to recover the total profits of an infringer from sales of the infringing article — without apportionment to specific patented features. This provision, reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in *Samsung Electronics Co. v. Apple Inc.* (2016), can result in disproportionately large damage awards relative to royalty-based compensation, making design patent enforcement particularly powerful.
Injunctive Relief
The court issued a permanent injunction barring all defaulting defendants and their affiliates from offering for sale, selling, or importing the infringing product, or aiding any third party in doing so. Third-party providers — specifically PayPal, Amazon, and Walmart — were ordered to disable seller accounts, freeze financial assets up to the damages amounts, and release frozen funds to Dyson within seven calendar days of the order.
Jurisdiction and Service
The court exercised personal jurisdiction over anonymous foreign defendants based on their deliberate targeting of U.S. consumers: operating storefronts accepting USD, offering U.S. shipping, and selling to Illinois residents. Electronic service via publication and email was deemed constitutionally sufficient notice under the circumstances.
Freedom to Operate (FTO) & Anti-Counterfeiting Strategy
This case highlights critical IP risks and enforcement strategies. Choose your next step:
📋 Understand This Case’s Impact
Learn about the specific risks and implications from this litigation.
- Identify key trends in e-commerce counterfeiting
- Analyze enforcement actions in your industry
- Explore the effectiveness of Schedule A litigation
🔍 Check My Product’s Risk
Run a comprehensive FTO analysis for your own technology or product design.
- Input your product design or technical features
- AI identifies potentially blocking patents
- Get actionable risk assessment report
High Risk Area
Component designs in consumer electronics
1 Design Patent
Focus on D710,299
Schedule A
Proven enforcement strategy
✅ Key Takeaways
Northern District of Illinois remains the premier venue for Schedule A design patent enforcement.
Explore case law by jurisdiction →35 U.S.C. § 289 total profits recovery makes design patent litigation financially compelling even for lower-cost products.
Analyze design patent damage awards →TRO-stage asset freezing is essential to ultimate recovery in default judgment cases against online counterfeiters.
View successful enforcement actions →Frequently Asked Questions
The case involved U.S. Design Patent No. D710,299, issued August 5, 2014, covering the ornamental design of a battery pack.
Section 289 allows design patent holders to recover the infringer’s total profits from sales of infringing articles, without apportionment. This provision often results in larger recoveries than reasonable royalty damages available in utility patent cases.
This case reinforces the viability of Schedule A litigation as a scalable enforcement strategy against anonymous online counterfeiters, and confirms that U.S. courts will compel major marketplace platforms to freeze assets and disable accounts rapidly upon entry of judgment.
Ready to Strengthen Your Patent Strategy?
Join 18,000+ IP professionals using PatSnap Eureka to conduct prior art searches, draft patents, and analyse competitive landscapes with AI-powered precision.
References
- PACER — Case No. 1:25-cv-10216, N.D. Ill.
- USPTO Patent Center — U.S. Design Patent No. D710,299
- Cornell Legal Information Institute — 35 U.S.C. § 289
- PatSnap — IP Intelligence Solutions for Law Firms
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. All case information is drawn from publicly available court records. For platform capabilities, visit PatSnap.