Case: 1:13-cv-06188 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/29/13 Page 1 of 7 PageID #:1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS KENNETH J. WEGER, Plaintiff, v. DYSON, INC., Defendant. Case No.

COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT Plaintiff, Kenneth J. Weger ("Weger"), for his Complaint against Defendant, Dyson, Inc. ("Dyson"), states as follows: NATURE OF THE LAWSUIT 1. This is a claim of patent infringement arising out of the patent laws of the

Unites States, Title 35 of the United States Code. THE PARTIES 2. 3. Weger is an inventor who resides in Crystal Lake, Illinois. Dyson is a corporation which is headquartered at 600 W. Chicago

Avenue, Suite 275, Chicago, Illinois. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 4. This Court has exclusive jurisdiction over the subject matter of this

Complaint under 28 U.S.C. 1331 and 1338(a). 5. 1400(b). Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. 1391(b)-(d) and

Case: 1:13-cv-06188 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/29/13 Page 2 of 7 PageID #:2

BACKGROUND Weger And His Invention 6. Weger is the sole named inventor on several patents, and this lawsuit

involves a patent on an invention of which he conceived while a student in college. Weger recognized how people with physical impairments in general, and arthritis in particular, had difficulty using conventional vacuum cleaners. He then conceived of the invention of a vacuum cleaner with greatly enhanced maneuverability and articulation. Weger's invention was recognized by the Tylenol/Arthritis Foundation as one of the top five transgenerational designs in the United States. 7. Weger's patent on his invention issued as U.S. Patent No. 5,794,305,

titled "Articulation Device for a Vacuum Cleaner" ("the '305 patent"). A key feature of the '305 patent is an articulation device, including spaced forward wheels and a pair of hemispherically shaped rearward wheels to allow the vacuum cleaner to be easily maneuvered and turned. Below is a fragmentary view of the preferred embodiment, depicting the pair of hemipherically shaped rearward wheels at 26:

Case: 1:13-cv-06188 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/29/13 Page 3 of 7 PageID #:3

Dyson Tries To Buy The Patent, Then Sues Weger 8. Dyson reviewed the '305 patent and recognized that Weger's invention

would make a valuable addition to the Dyson line of vacuum cleaners. Accordingly, it tried to buy the '305 patent while at the same time hiding its identity as the potential buyer. 9. On June 30, 2003, two people purporting to be lawyers (they refused to

identify themselves), met with Weger in Chicago for the purpose of purchasing the '305 patent. That meeting was requested by an attorney from Boston, Massachusetts who stated that he did not know the identity of his client. During the June 30, 2003 meeting, the "lawyers" refused to identify their client, and displayed a purchase agreement with the name of the buyer masked by tape. Weger refused to sell the'305 patent for the nominal amount offered and left the meeting. 10, Shortly after Weger's refusal, Dyson filed a declaratory judgment action

against Weger in the Northern District of Illinois (Dyson, Inc. v. Kenneth J. Weger, No. 05 C 2268). In that suit, Dyson sought a declaration that its DC15 model vacuum cleaner did not infringe the '305 patent. 11. The Dyson DC15 model contains a single, barrel-shaped rearward wheel:

Case: 1:13-cv-06188 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/29/13 Page 4 of 7 PageID #:4

12.

On November 3, 2005, the Court (Judge George W. Lindberg) construed

the term "hemispherically shaped" in the '305 patent to mean "having the form of half of a sphere." (Doc. No. 41-2 at 4). The Court thereupon held that the DC15 model did not infringe the '305 patent: "[T]he rearward wheel at issue is neither a 'pair', nor is it hemispherically shaped. Plaintiff's vacuum cleaner contains a single, barrel shaped rearward wheel." (Doc. No. 41-2 at 5). 13. After that ruling, Dyson's attorney contacted Weger's attorney and once

again sought to buy the '305 patent. Once again, Weger declined. Dyson Simply Copies The '305 Patent 14. Emboldened by the ruling on the DC15 model, and believing that Weger

did not have the stomach for more litigation against Dyson, Dyson decided to simply copy Weger's invention in the '305 patent. 15. The DCI5 was an unwieldy attempt to design around the '305 patent, and

that model could not achieve the benefits and the enhanced maneuverability of the '305 patent. Accordingly, Dyson jettisoned the DC15 design and replaced it by copying the 4

Case: 1:13-cv-06188 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/29/13 Page 5 of 7 PageID #:5

design of the '305 patent, specifically using a pair of hemispherically shaped rearward wheels, both of which are in the form of "half of a sphere." Below is a photograph of the Dyson articulation device.

16.

Dyson made the infringing articulation device a key feature of its product

line. Specifically, at least Dyson models DC50, DC47, DC41, and DC40 infringe at least claims 1 and 13 of the '305 patent. Dyson even uses Weger's own words to describe what it copied from the '305 patent, calling the infringing models "articulating tools". 17. Dyson's conduct regarding Weger and his '305 patent is particularly ironic,

given the fact that Dyson founder and CEO James Dyson is quite outspoken when competitors copy Dyson's own intellectual property. In August of 2013 James Dyson declared to Time Magazine: "This is a really important point: judges think that if you allow people to copy things, you're creating competition. In my view, you're stifling it. All you get is products that look the same. Mimicry is anticompetitive." 18. According to James Dyson, the "Dyson" design provides optimal

maneuverability: "The thing about balls is that they maneuver on themselves and they turn on a dime; whereas four wheels on a vacuum cleaner is a very difficult thing to maneuver around the home. Dyson engineer Stephen Courtney declared that the

design satisfies a long-felt need "I found that traditional layouts which almost all upright 5

Case: 1:13-cv-06188 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/29/13 Page 6 of 7 PageID #:6

vacuum cleaners adopt, very difficult to use in confined spaces and also quite annoying when you come up against an obstacle. Its very difficult to manipulate the machine around chairs and table legs. I thought there was a genuine need to produce a very maneuverable upright product for some time for the problems I described earlier." 19. 20. Weger has been damaged by Dyson's infringement. Dyson's infringement has been willful.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Weger respectfully asks this Court to enter judgment against Defendant Dyson and against each of its subsidiaries, successors, parents, affiliates, officers, directors, agents, servants, employees, and all persons in active concert or participation with them, granting the following relief: A. The entry of judgment in favor of Plaintiff Weger and against Defendant Dyson; B. An award of damages as to Defendant Dyson adequate to compensate Plaintiff Weger for the infringement that has occurred, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty as permitted by 35 U.S.C. 284, together with prejudgment interest from the date the infringement began; C. A finding that this case is exceptional and an award to Plaintiff Weger of his reasonable attorneys fees and costs as provided by 35 U.S.C. 285; D. A permanent injunction prohibiting further infringement of the '305 patent; and E. Such other relief that Weger is entitled to under law, and any other and further relief that this Court or a jury may deem just and proper. JURY DEMAND Weger demands a trial by jury on all issues presented in this Complaint.

Case: 1:13-cv-06188 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/29/13 Page 7 of 7 PageID #:7

Respectfully submitted, /s/ Paul K. Vickrey Paul K. Vickrey Richard B. Megley, Jr. Ashley E. LaValley Niro, Haller & Niro 181 W. Madison Street - Suite 4600 Chicago, IL 60602 (312) 236-0733 vickrey@nshn.com megley@nshn.com alavalley@nshn.com Attorneys for Kenneth J. Weger