Exhibit B 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 638-2 Filed: 01/25/23 Page 1 of 10 PageID #:16464
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

HANGZHOU CHIC INTELLIGENT and

UNICORN GLOBAL, INC.,

Plaintiffs,

-vsTHE PARTNERSHIPS AND

UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATIONS

IDENTIFIED ON SCHEDULE "A,"

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 20 C 4806

Chicago, Illinois

December 2, 2022

10:00 a.m.

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS - PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION HEARING

BEFORE THE HONORABLE THOMAS M. DURKIN

APPEARANCES:

For the Plaintiffs: TARTER KRINSKY & DROGIN LLP

BY: MR. RICHARD JOSEPH LAMAR LOMUSCIO

MS. CHANDLER ELIZABETH STURM

MR. MARK BERKOWITZ

1350 Broadway

11th Floor

New York, NY 10018

PALMERSHEIM & MATHEW

BY: MR. ANAND C. MATHEW

401 N. Franklin Street

Suite 4S

Chicago, IL 60654

Court Reporter: KELLY M. FITZGERALD, CSR, RMR, CRR

Official Court Reporter

United States District Court

219 South Dearborn Street, Room 1420

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Telephone: (312) 818-6626

kmftranscripts@gmail.com

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 638-2 Filed: 01/25/23 Page 2 of 10 PageID #:16465 Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 620 Filed: 12/07/22 Page 1 of 180 PageID #:15520
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

2

APPEARANCES: (Continued)

For the Defendants: GLACIER LAW LLP

BY: MR. YU-HAO YAO

9660 Flair Drive

Suite 328

El Monte, CA 91731

GLACIER LAW LLP

BY: MR. HE CHENG

MR. TAO LIU

41 Madison Avenue

Suite 2529

New York, NY 10010

GLACIER LAW LLP

BY: MR. WEI WANG

200 Park Avenue

Suite 1703

New York, NY 10166

ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Peter Phaneuf

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 638-2 Filed: 01/25/23 Page 3 of 10 PageID #:16466 Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 620 Filed: 12/07/22 Page 2 of 180 PageID #:15521
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Hatch - direct by Berkowitz

62

also that the '906 was invented at or around the same time, or

this was filed at or around the same time. And so even though

it wasn't -- the inventors did not include it or this hadn't

been made public at the time that the patents in issue were

filed, this is considered prior art in this case.

And so the '906 adds to our understanding of what

existed at that time.

Q. Okay. And can you characterize the '906 patent for us?

A. Yes. So we see from the '906 that it is also for a

similar-type vehicle, a self-balancing vehicle is our

understanding, and we see a very slick race move body.

Obviously we are seeing an hourglass shape which we saw in a

number of the other prior art as well. That itself was not

unique to the '906 when it was filed. Hourglasses have been

around for a while.

However, what we're seeing here is their

interpretation of that form in the way that it's so smooth and

so rounded, and I believe in my deposition I used the word

melted. It doesn't have those sort of hardened edges that we

see in some of the other prior art at the time.

Q. Okay. So we've now established the universe of prior art.

Can you tell us how that sort of plays into your analysis in

connection with these particular patents for each of the '256

and '723?

A. Yes. And I think maybe going back to the last side, I

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 620 Filed: 12/07/22 Page 62 of 180 PageID #:15581 Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 638-2 Filed: 01/25/23 Page 4 of 10 PageID #:16467
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Hatch - direct by Berkowitz

63

think it's important to see that, you know, with our

understanding of what existed at the time, the '723 and '256

patents provided something that was really quite different,

quite radically different, and hadn't existed before it. So

in doing so, we see that the prior art is really quite far

away from the patents at issue, and, therefore, you would

understand that it has very broad scope.

Q. Okay. So we've now covered the first three steps of the

analysis. We've construed the claims, defined the ordinary

observer. We've gone through your understanding of the prior

art. What's the next step?

A. So the next step, if you go forward -- thank you.

THE COURT: Do you need some water?

THE WITNESS: Thank you.

THE COURT: Oh, you've got some. Okay.

BY THE WITNESS:

A. So in the next step, as I had mentioned before, first of

all, we do a direct comparison between the patent, the design

as a whole of the claimed part of the patent to the accused

product. And, again, of course my analysis was to the

physical product that I had at hand.

Here, as specifically, we're looking at a more sort

of broader look in this direct comparison to understand if are

they plainly dissimilar, are we looking at an apple and a

banana, or are we looking at similar products here.

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 620 Filed: 12/07/22 Page 63 of 180 PageID #:15582 Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 638-2 Filed: 01/25/23 Page 5 of 10 PageID #:16468
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Hatch - direct by Berkowitz

75

where I compared in the first step Gyroor E to the '723 patent

and found they are not plainly dissimilar, and then comparing

to the prior art to understand how much effects the

differences have between the two products. I also found that

Gyroor E and the '723 are much closer together, not identical,

but much closer together than the prior art.

Q. To the judge's question, are there any notable differences

between the A, C, and now looking at E?

A. Yes. And, again, in the fender area, we see that it has a

somewhat shorter fender than Gyroor B, for instance. It may

be a little closer to A if we were looking at that part in

isolation. We see some differences around the lighting area

and the grooves are generally the same sort of feel; but when

we compare, we do see differences.

Q. Okay. As far as your infringement analysis, what is the

impact of those differences?

A. Because of how far away the '906 is, the impacts of those

is relatively insignificant on the overall impression. They

do -- they are part of the overall impression, and if we were

comparing only A, B, and E together, we would then be seeing a

narrowing down on those slight differences as being very

important. However, of course, when comparing directly to the

'906, we see how insignificant small differences are in

particular between the accused products and the patent.

Q. Okay. I just want to -- so with respect to the Gyroor E

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 620 Filed: 12/07/22 Page 75 of 180 PageID #:15594 Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 638-2 Filed: 01/25/23 Page 6 of 10 PageID #:16469
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Gandy - direct by Cheng

123

and still perform the same function, then it would have to be

considered clearly primarily ornamental rather than primarily

functional.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you.

BY MR. CHENG:

Q. And Mr. Hatch also mentioned that D '906 patent doesn't

have foot padding. However, the D '723 patent had the foot

padding, and because '723 has the foot padding and the accused

product A have the foot padding, they are somehow closer to

each other.

Do you agree with that analysis?

A. No. I don't agree with that because what we have to look

at in this instance is the '906 prior art design patent was

the first hoverboard ever invented. So hoverboards that would

be designed after that may have additional features on them

that are not in the prior art, and if it's not in the prior

art, what's considered the best prior art reference, that

doesn't mean that the alleged infringing product is -- is

infringing the claimed design, in this instance '723.

You have to look. Once you see that there are

features that are not in the prior art, then you have to start

evaluating those features between the alleged infringing

product with the claimed design, in this instance, the '723

patent.

Q. So you're saying the idea of adding the foot pad is not

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 620 Filed: 12/07/22 Page 123 of 180 PageID #:15642 Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 638-2 Filed: 01/25/23 Page 7 of 10 PageID #:16470
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Gandy - cross by Sturm

138

And all of the photos that you included in your

report were provided by defendants' counsel; is that correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. So looking at the patents, I guess the '723, you would say

that the '723 patent has raised foot pads; is that correct?

A. I'm sorry, has what?

Q. Has raised foot pads?

A. Yes.

Q. Yes. And you would say the same for the '256 patent?

A. Yes.

Q. Are you aware of any other prior art patents with raised

foot pads?

A. I haven't looked at any. I mean, there may be, but I

haven't looked at any as far as pointing out whether this has

been done maybe in patents or hoverboards that were patented

prior to these two.

THE COURT: By raised foot pads, do you mean the foot

pads have grooves in them, or do you mean they're higher than

the center of the -- you testified earlier the foot pads

appear higher than the center, at least on the --

THE WITNESS: On the accused products.

THE COURT: -- on the accused products.

THE WITNESS: Right.

THE COURT: And you just said there are raised foot

pads in these patents. Are you referring to the grooves on

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 620 Filed: 12/07/22 Page 138 of 180 PageID #:15657 Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 638-2 Filed: 01/25/23 Page 8 of 10 PageID #:16471
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Gandy - cross by Sturm

140

is recessed, but not only is the foot pad raised, but the

actual pads themselves are also raised --

THE COURT: Okay.

THE WITNESS: -- on those surfaces.

THE COURT: Thanks. Thanks for clarifying that.

BY MS. STURM:

Q. And you would say that the '723 patent has fenders over

the wheels; is that correct?

A. Yeah, I don't have the '723 up here.

Okay. Yeah, go ahead.

Q. So you would say that the '723 patent has raised -- sorry,

has fenders; is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And the same for the '256; is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Are you aware of any prior art patents that have fenders?

A. Other than what's showed disclosed in the '906, I haven't

looked -- I mean, as far as my -- what I was retained for

here, I have not done any searching to see whether there's

other prior art patents out there that may have this. I'm

just looking at what was presented to me and the '906 prior

art.

Q. So you would say that none of the prior art patents that

were cited on the face of both the '256 and the '723, none of

those patents had fenders; is that correct?

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 620 Filed: 12/07/22 Page 140 of 180 PageID #:15659 Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 638-2 Filed: 01/25/23 Page 9 of 10 PageID #:16472
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

180

hopefully you can come up with an agreed briefing schedule

whether it's one side seeking it, another side not, or whether

it's joint summary judgment motions. Either way, come up with

an agreed briefing schedule.

If you can't reach an agreement, note your

disagreements in an email to my courtroom deputy, and I'll

resolve the disagreements and we'll have a briefing schedule

on summary judgment, and then we'll proceed from here.

Okay. Last chance, any questions by plaintiff?

MR. LOMUSCIO: No, your Honor.

THE COURT: Any questions by defendant?

MR. YAO: No, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you all for a very

interesting presentation and for the witnesses and their time.

Thank you all.

(Which were all the proceedings heard.)

C E R T I F I C A T E

We certify that the foregoing is a correct

transcript from the record of proceedings in the

above-entitled matter.

/s/ Kelly M. Fitzgerald

___________________________________

/s/ Kathleen M. Fennell December 3, 2022

___________________________________ _________________

Official Court Reporters Date

United States District Court

Northern District of Illinois

Eastern Division

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 620 Filed: 12/07/22 Page 180 of 180 PageID #:15699 Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 638-2 Filed: 01/25/23 Page 10 of 10 PageID #:16473