Exhibit 3 

 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 413-3 Filed: 09/03/21 Page 1 of 87 PageID #:9933
 
 




!


(*)(*,#('!,%

 	

.

' 



/0

 		



	.
	


('(*%!"(&+-*$#'

"


#

#
0
#4##

 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 413-3 Filed: 09/03/21 Page 2 of 87 PageID #:9934
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 1

II. QUALIFICATIONS .............................................................................................................. 2

III. MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE APPLICABLE LEGAL PRINCIPLES ................... 4

IV. THE DECLARATION OF PAUL HATCH ........................................................................ 5

V. ANALYSIS OF THE ASSERTED PATENTS, THE ACCUSED PRODUCTS AND

THE PRIOR ART ................................................................................................................. 8

A. The ‘723 Patent, Prior Art ‘906 Patent and Gyroor “A” .................................................. 8 

B. The ‘256 Patent, Prior Art ‘906 Patent and Gyroor “A” ................................................ 12 

C. The ‘195 Patent, Prior Art ‘906 Patent and Gyroor “A” ................................................ 17 

D. The ‘112 Patent, Prior Art ‘906 Patent and Gyroor “A” ................................................ 21 

E. The ‘723 Patent, Prior Art ‘906 Patent and Gyroor “B” ................................................ 25 

F. The ‘256 Patent, Prior Art ‘906 Patent and Gyroor “B” ................................................ 30 

G. The ‘195 Patent, Prior Art ‘906 Patent and Gyroor “B” ................................................ 35 

H. The ‘112 Patent, Prior Art ‘906 Patent and Gyroor “B” ................................................ 40 

I. The ‘723 Patent, Prior Art ‘906 Patent and Gyroor “C” ................................................ 44 

K. The ‘195 Patent, Prior Art ‘906 Patent and Gyroor “C” ................................................ 53 

L. The ‘112 Patent, Prior Art ‘906 Patent and Gyroor “C” ................................................ 57 

M. The ‘723 Patent, Prior Art ‘906 Patent and Gyroor “D” ................................................ 61 

N. The ‘256 Patent, Prior Art ‘906 Patent and Gyroor “D” ................................................ 66 

O. The ‘195 Patent, Prior Art ‘906 Patent and Gyroor “D” ................................................ 71 

P. The ‘112 Patent, Prior Art ‘906 Patent and Gyroor “D” ................................................ 75 

VI. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................... 80

i

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 413-3 Filed: 09/03/21 Page 3 of 87 PageID #:9935
1 

REBUTTAL EXPERT DECLARATION OF JIM GANDY AS TO 

NON-INFRINGEMENT OF THE ASSERTED DESIGN PATENTS 

I, Jim Gandy, submit this declaration in support of multiple defendants, Gyroor, JiangyouUS, Gyroshoes, Fengchi-US, HGSM, Urbanmax, Gaodeshang-US, Gyroor-US, declaratory relief 

of noninfringement. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1746, I declare under penalty of perjury that 

the statements herein are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, belief, recollection, and 

understanding. All statements made on information and belief are believed to be true. I am over 

the age of eighteen, and, if asked to do so, I could competently testify to the matters set forth 

herein. 

I. INTRODUCTION 

1. I have been retained by counsel as an independent expert witness to provide my 

opinion regarding the above-captioned proceeding. Based on my education and my experience in 

transportation design, I have been asked to render an opinion regarding alleged infringement of 

the sole claim of design patents D737,723, D738,256, D784,195, and D785,112, (“The Asserted 

Design Patents”). This declaration contains my opinions concerning the alleged infringement of 

those design patents in rebuttal to the opinions of Paul Hatch as set forth in his report dated August 

24, 2021. Multiple defendants, Gyroor, Jiangyou-US, Gyroshoes, Fengchi-US, HGSM, 

Urbanmax, Gaodeshang-US, Gyroor-US, (“multiple defendents”) requested that I opine on the 

affidavit submitted by Paul Hatch in support of Plaintiffs Hangzhou Chic Intelligent Technology 

Co. and Unicorn Global Inc.’s motion for a preliminary injunction. 

2. As discussed in further detail in this Declaration and any supplemental reports, 

testimony, or declarations that I may provide, it is my opinion that the Defendant’s hoverboard 

designs, Gyroor “A”, “B”, “C” and “D” do not infringe the D737,723, D738,256, D784195 and 

D785,112 patents. 

3. The following is my report and it and the exhibits hereto contain my opinions and 

the support therefore. In connection with rendering my opinion I have reviewed and relied upon 

the following materials: 

 U.S. Design Patent No. D737,723 (“the ’723 Patent”) 

 File History for U.S. Design Patent No. D737,723 Patent;

 U.S. Design Patent No. D738,256 (“the ’256 Patent”) 

 File History for U.S. Design Patent No. D738,256 Patent;

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 413-3 Filed: 09/03/21 Page 4 of 87 PageID #:9936
2 

 U.S. Design Patent No. D784,195 (“the ’195 Patent”)

 File History for U.S. Design Patent No. D784,195 Patent;

 U.S. Design Patent No. D785,112 (“the ’112 Patent”)

 File History for U.S. Design Patent No. D785,112 Patent;

 Defendant’s hoverboards, Gyroor “A”, “B”, “C” and “D” (“The Accused

Products”);

 U.S. Design Patent No. D739,906 (“the ‘906 Patent”);

 U.S. Utility Patent No. 8,738,287 (“the ‘287 Patent”);

 EXPERT DECLARATION OF PAUL HATCH REGARDING INFRINGEMENT

OF U.S. PATENTS D737,723, D738,256, D784,195, and D785,112, (“The Hatch

Declaration”); and

 DEFENDANT GYROOR-US’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT

FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF OF NONINFRINGEMENT.

4. In addition to the above materials, I have also relied on my own education, training,

experience and knowledge in the field of transportation and design patents. 

5. I may also consider additional documents and information that have not yet been

provided to or discovered by me should such documents and information be brought to my 

attention after the date I submit this Declaration, and I reserve the right to add to or amend my 

opinions in connection with the same. 

6. The analysis in this Declaration is exemplary. Additional reasons may support my

conclusions, but they do not form my current analysis. The fact that I do not address a particular 

reason does not imply that I would agree or disagree with such additional reason. 

7. I receive compensation at a rate of $350 per hour for my time spent on this matter,

except for any travel time, which is billed at one-half of my hourly rate. I am also being reimbursed 

for reasonable and customary expenses associated with my work on this matter. I have no financial 

interests in the patents involved in this proceeding, and my compensation is not dependent on the 

outcome of this proceeding. The conclusions I present are based on my own judgment. I am not 

an employee of “multiple defendants”, Glacier Law PLLC, or any affiliated companies. 

II. QUALIFICATIONS

8. My current curriculum vitae is attached as Exhibit 1.

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 413-3 Filed: 09/03/21 Page 5 of 87 PageID #:9937
3 

9. I hold a Bachelor of Science in Architectural Design Technology from Temple

University in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, where I graduated in 1972. 

10. Upon graduation, I worked as a Design Patent Examiner in Art Unit 2911 for the

United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”). While in Art Unit 2911, I primarily 

worked in class D12 “Transportation.” My responsibilities included examining design patent 

applications, examining reexamination and reissue applications, issuing determinations on 

examined applications, initiating interference proceedings, and preparing examiner’s answers for 

applications on appeal to the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences. 

11. In 1979, I was promoted to Primary Examiner and continued to work as a Design

Patent Examiner in Art Unit 2911 for the USPTO. With this promotion, I gained full signatory 

authority and trained new examiners while occasionally fulfilling supervisory patent examiner 

duties when the art 

12. In my 24 years of work as a Design Patent Examiner at the USPTO, I made

patentability determinations in approximately 10,000 design patent applications that I examined. 

I have examined design patent applications in every design class, and approximately three-quarters 

of my examinations related to Class D12 (Land Transportation). 

13. In 1996, I became a Supervisory Patent Examiner for the USPTO and transitioned

to Art Unit 2913, which also reviews designs for Transportation among other classes of art. As 

supervisor, I managed the work flow, quality, and timeliness of examiners in my art unit. I also 

trained junior examiners and provided additional training to primary examiners to maintain 

consistency in work product. I evaluated the performance of all examiners in the art unit. Finally, 

I also developed the Design Examiner Supplemental Training Guide and led the program for 

uniformity of examination practice for the entire Design Patent Technology Center. 

14. In 1998, I became the Design Patent Practice Specialist for Technology Center 2900

at the USPTO. I continued to train all new examiners, junior examiners when they joined the 

USPTO and trained all examiners at Technology Center 2900 through continuing education 

programs. I was in charge of updating the Design Examiner Supplemental Training Guide and 

Chapter 1500 Design Patents in the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure. I responded to 

inquiries from external customers about design patent practice and procedure on a daily basis. I 

continuously reviewed cases, decisions, and reports coming from the courts, the Board, and the 

Office of Patent Quality Review to train examiners and update the previously mentioned 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 413-3 Filed: 09/03/21 Page 6 of 87 PageID #:9938
4 

documents. Finally, I also made presentations to attorneys and inventor groups on behalf of the 

USPTO. 

15. During my career at the USPTO, I received an outstanding rating under 

performance appraisal plan for 32 consecutive years. I also received various accolades including 

the Department of Commerce Bronze Medal Award in 1983; the USPTO’s Distinguished Career 

Award in 2000 in recognition of consistent superior performance in design patent application 

examination and in art unit leadership; and the Norman P. Morgenstern Award in 2004 for the 

leadership and innovation contributions made by Supervisory Patent Examiners. 

16. Currently, and since my retirement from the USPTO in 2005, I have occasionally 

counseled patent attorneys and agents who file design patents applications. 

17. In the past I have served as in expert in other design patent related matters, a 

detailed list of cases in which I have served as a design patent expert is set forth in my curriculum 

vitae which is attached as Exhibit 1. 

III. MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE APPLICABLE LEGAL PRINCIPLES 

18. As a design patent expert, I am not an attorney and, therefore, nothing in this report 

should be construed as me offering any legal opinions. Rather, I am offering design assessments 

and opinions. In rendering my analysis, I have been informed by counsel for “multiple defendents” 

the legal standards for infringement of a design patent. I have applied those standards in forming 

the opinions expressed in this report. 

19. Based on my conversations with counsel for “multiple defendents” and my review 

of administrative decisions and articles discussing design patent law principals, I have the 

following understanding of design patent infringement. First, it is my understanding that the claim 

in a design patent application is directed to the entire design and not individual parts or elements 

thereof. In addition, it is my understanding that the proper inquiry in determining if a patented 

design has been infringed is whether the accused design appropriates the claimed design as a 

whole. Further, it is my understanding that design patent infringement is determined by first 

construing the claim to the design and then comparing it to the design of the accused device. It’s 

also my understanding that in construing the claim a design is better represented by an illustration 

rather than a verbal description since any description would not likely be intelligible without the 

illustration. Therefore, it is my opinion that the claim of the Patents-in-Suit should be construed 

based on the drawings. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 413-3 Filed: 09/03/21 Page 7 of 87 PageID #:9939
5 

20. I have further been informed by counsel for “multiple defendents” that the sole test 

for determining whether a design patent has been infringed is the “ordinary observer” test. It’s my 

understanding that under the “ordinary observer” test for infringement of a patented design an 

accused design must be so similar in overall appearance to the claimed design that an “ordinary 

observer” would be deceived into purchasing one, supposing it to be the other. Moreover, it’s my 

understanding that under this test an “ordinary observer” is one who is conversant with the prior 

art and that in order to determine whether an accused design appropriates the patented design a 

comparison of the features of the patented design with the prior art and the accused design may be 

necessary. In this instance, an “ordinary observer” is a potential purchaser who is familiar with 

hoverboards and their different designs. 

IV. THE DECLARATION OF PAUL HATCH 

21. In order to assess whether the design of “The Accused Products” appropriates the 

claimed design of “The Asserted Design Patents”, the features of each should be identified and 

then compared to each other and the prior art. “The Hatch Declaration” fails to do that adequately. 

Specifically, with respect to the ‘723 and ‘256 patents, Mr. Hatch makes the following statement, 

in part, on pages 22 and 23 of his declaration: “Unlike the cited prior art shown in Section III 

Chapter F, the claimed design ............... and the Accused Products share the same overall 

impression and have an integrated ‘hourglass’ body with a relatively flat surface across the top of 

the main body, arched covers over the wheel area, larger radii on the front and back of the 

underside, and elongated light panels on the front surface.” This statement by Mr. Hatch not only 

fails to identify specific features of “The Accused Products” and the claimed design of the ‘723 

and ‘256 patents on the top, front, rear and bottom surfaces, but also fails to describe the shape and 

appearance of some of the features that are identified in his statement. Specifically, the following 

features that contribute to the overall shape and appearance of “The Accused Products” and the 

claimed design of the ‘723 and ‘256 patents are either omitted or not adequately described in “The 

Hatch Declaration”: a) The shape and appearance of the foot pads on the top surface; 

b) The contour of the narrow central portion of the top surface, which is not 

flat, contrary to Mr. Hatch’s statement; 

c) The specific shape and appearance of the “arched covers”; 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 413-3 Filed: 09/03/21 Page 8 of 87 PageID #:9940
6 

d) The specific shape and appearance of the “elongated light panels on the

front surface” as well as other features of the front and rear surfaces which

will be described below; and

e) Features on the bottom surface which will be described below.

As will be described later in this declaration, the above identified features contribute significantly 

to the overall shape and appearance of “The Accused Products” and the claimed design of the ‘723 

and ‘256 patents as a whole and distinguish them over each other such that an “ordinary observer”, 

familiar with the prior art, would not be confused so as to purchase one thinking it to be the other. 

22. With regards to the ‘195 and ‘112 patents, Mr. Hatch makes the following

statement, in part, on pages 25 and 26 of his declaration: “Unlike the cited prior art shown in 

Section III Chapter F, the claimed design ................ and the Accused Products share an 

integrated ‘hourglass’ body with many horizontal styling lines across the body and a relatively flat 

surface across the top, arched covers over the wheel area, larger radii on the front and back of the 

underside.” Again, this statement by Mr. Hatch not only fails to identify specific features of “The 

Accused Products” and the claimed design of the ‘195 and ‘112 patents on the top, front, rear and 

bottom surfaces, but also fails to describe the shape and appearance of some of the features that 

are identified in his statement. Specifically, the following features that contribute to the overall 

shape and appearance of “The Accused Products” and the claimed design of the ‘195 and ‘112 

patents are either omitted or not adequately described in “The Hatch Declaration”: 

a) The contour of the narrow central portion of the top surface, which is not

flat, contrary to Mr. Hatch’s statement;

b) The specific shape and appearance of the “arched covers”;

c) The specific shape and appearance and features of the front and rear

surfaces which will be described below; and

e) Features on the bottom surface which will be described below.

As will be described later in this declaration, the above identified features contribute significantly 

to the overall shape and appearance of “The Accused Products” and the claimed design of the ‘195 

and ‘112 patents as a whole and distinguish them over each other such that an “ordinary observer”, 

familiar with the prior art, would not be confused so as to purchase one thinking it to be the other. 

23. In addition to the above deficiencies, “The Hatch Declaration” fails to identify the

closest prior art to the “Asserted Design Patents” and compare it to said patents and “The Accused 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 413-3 Filed: 09/03/21 Page 9 of 87 PageID #:9941
7 

Products”. In fact, Mr. Hatch makes the following statement, in part, on pages 18 and 19 of his 

declaration: “None of the prior art create the impression of an integrated ‘hourglass’ body with 

many ............. lines across the body and a relatively flat surface across the top, arched covers 

over the wheel area, larger radii on the front and back of the underside. Unlike any of the prior art 

the foot plates narrow as they extend toward the center.” However, contrary to Mr. Hatch’s 

statement, the design patent D739,906, (“the ‘906 patent”), cited on both the ‘195 and ‘112 patents, 

is the closest prior art to the “Asserted Design Patents” and in fact, has an ‘hourglass’ body and a 

relatively flat surface across the top, arched covers over the wheel area, larger radii on the front 

and back of the underside as well as foot plates that narrow as they extend toward the center. It’s 

my opinion that the design disclosed in the prior art ‘906 patent has an overall shape and 

appearance basically the same as the “The Asserted Patents”. While it’s noted that the ‘906 patent 

was issued after the ‘723 and ‘256 patents, the ‘906 patent was filed with the United States Patent 

and Trademark Office more than a year before the filing date of those patents and it’s my 

understanding it can be considered prior art for the purpose of this infringement analysis. In support 

of this position, I have also considered the 8,738,278 utility patent, (the ‘278 patent), which again 

was cited on the ‘195 and ‘112 patents, and names the same inventor, Shane Chen, as the ‘906 

design patent and was filed a month earlier than the ‘906 design patent and issued before the filing 

dates of the ‘723, ‘256, ‘195 and ‘112 patents and more than a year before the issue date of those 

patents. Figure 1 of the ‘278 patent discloses a hoverboard having an appearance basically the 

same as the design in the ‘906 patent, and Figure 2 shows the hour glass peripheral shape of the 

hoverboard shown in Figure 1 and the design shown in the ‘906 patent. It’s further my 

understanding that as prior art the ‘906 patent can be relied upon for everything it discloses in the 

drawing, including the broken line depiction of wheel covers on each end of the design. It’s further 

noted that the ‘723 and ‘256 patents were cited on the ‘195 and ‘112 patents; however, since the 

applicant and assignee in all four of those patents are the same and the ‘195 and ‘112 patents were 

filed less than a year after the issuance of the ‘723 and ‘256 patent I do not consider the ‘723 and 

‘256 patent prior art to the ‘195 and ‘112 patents. Below I will make a side-by-side visual 

comparison of the claimed design of the “Asserted Design Patents” and “The Accused Products” 

with the prior art ‘906 patent. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 413-3 Filed: 09/03/21 Page 10 of 87 PageID #:9942
8 

V. ANALYSIS OF THE ASSERTED PATENTS, THE ACCUSED PRODUCTS AND

THE PRIOR ART

A. The ‘723 Patent, Prior Art ‘906 Patent and Gyroor “A”

Top plan view “723 patent Top plan view prior art ‘906 patent 

 Top plan view Gyroor “A” 

24. In view of the above visual depictions of the claimed design of the ‘723 patent, the

design of the prior art ‘906 patent and the design of the Gyroor “A” hoverboard it’s clear that they 

all have the same hour glass peripheral shape as viewed in top plan. In fact, the hour glass 

peripheral shape of the prior art ‘906 patent appears to be closer to the claimed design of the ‘723 

patent than the design of the Gyroor “A” hoverboard. Furthermore, the claimed design of the ‘723 

patent, the design of the prior art ‘906 patent and the design of the Gyroor “A” hoverboard are all

comprised of the same general components, namely, opposing outer foot surfaces that are 

substantially flat, a concavely curved recessed center portion and wheel covers at each end. As 

will be apparent from the remaining views set forth below, namely, front, rear, side, perspective 

and bottom the specific shape and appearance of the surfaces and features of the design of the prior 

art ‘906 patent are, in my opinion, closer to the claimed design of the ‘723 patent than the design 

of the Gyroor “A” hoverboard. For instance as can be seen in the front and rear views below, the 

concavely curved recessed center portion of the top surface of the claimed design of the ‘723 patent 

and the design of the prior art ‘906 patent both have a slightly raised convex contour, while the 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 413-3 Filed: 09/03/21 Page 11 of 87 PageID #:9943
9 

corresponding center portion of the top surface of the design of the Gyroor “A” hoverboard is 

substantially flat and slightly recessed down below the opposing outer foot surfaces. 

25.

Rear view ‘723 patent Front view ‘723 patent 

 

Front and Rear view prior art ‘906 patent Front and Rear view Gyroor “A” 

 

26. Furthermore, it’s noted that the wheel covers at each end of the claimed design of 

the ‘723 patent, the design of the prior art ‘906 patent and the design of the Gyroor “A” hoverboard 

differ from each other as shown in the top plan view and front and rear views above as well as the 

side view and perspective view below. However, it’s my opinion that the shape and appearance of 

the wheel covers in the claimed design of the ‘723 patent are closer to the wheel covers shown in 

broken lines in the design of the prior art ‘906 patent than the wheel covers of the design of the 

Gyroor “A” hoverboard. Specifically, the wheel covers shown on the claimed design of the ‘723 

patent and the design of the prior art ‘906 patent are both semi-circular in shape and extend over 

and cover the entire wheel, while the wheel covers on the design of the Gyroor “A” hoverboard 

are somewhat squared off and do not extend over the entire wheel, but rather partially over the 

wheel. 

Side view ‘723 patent Side view prior art ‘906 patent Side view Gyroor “A” 

 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 413-3 Filed: 09/03/21 Page 12 of 87 PageID #:9944
10 

 Perspective view ‘723 patent Perspective view prior art ‘906 patent 

 

 Perspective view the Gyroor “A” 

 

27. The only common feature on the top surface of the claimed design of the ‘723 patent 

and the design of the Gyroor “A” hoverboard not shown on the design of prior art patent ‘906 

patent is the foot pads on the opposing foot surfaces. However, it is clear from the enlarged isolated 

view below that the foot pads of the claimed design of the ‘723 patent and the design of the Gyroor 

“A” hoverboard differ not only in their peripheral shape but also the decorative pattern of ribs on 

each.

Enlarged view of foot pads Enlarged view of foot pads 

 ‘723 patent Gyroor “A” 

 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 413-3 Filed: 09/03/21 Page 13 of 87 PageID #:9945
11 

28. The front and rear surfaces of the claimed design of the ‘723 patent and the design 

of prior art ‘906 patent are substantially similar in shape and appearance as depicted in the front 

and rear views and the perspective views above. Specifically, both designs have a vertically flat 

upper portion of the front and rear surfaces and a convexly curved lower portion that merges with 

the flat bottom surface. The only visual difference is the rounded parallelogram shaped LED lights 

at the opposing outer ends of the rear surface of the claimed design of the ‘723 patent and the lines 

on the front and rear surface of the claimed design of the ‘723 patent. On the contrary, while the 

design of the Gyroor “A” hoverboard has front and rear surfaces having a vertically flat upper 

portion and a convexly curved lower portion that merges with the bottom surface as the claimed 

design of the ‘723 patent and the design of prior art ‘906 patent, the central portion of the front 

and rear surfaces of the design of the Gyroor “A” hoverboard differs significantly from the claimed 

design of the ‘723 patent and the design of prior art ‘906 patent. Specifically, directly below the 

vertically flat upper portion of the front and rear surfaces are recessed horizontally elongated LED 

lights and below the LED lights is an outwardly protruding horizontal band that extends inwardly 

and merges with the recessed central portion. Also, on the right front vertically flat upper portion 

of the design of “The Accused Product” is the word “GYROOR”. 

29. The shape and appearance of the bottom surface of the claimed design of the ‘723 

patent and the design of prior art ‘906 patent are virtually identical as illustrated in the bottom 

views below. Specifically, both the claimed design of the ‘723 patent and the design of prior art 

‘906 patent have opposing flat, plain outer portions and a smooth continuous concavely curved 

central portion which is best shown in the front and rear views above. However, the bottom surface 

of the design of the Gyroor “A” hoverboard differs from both the claimed design of the ‘723 patent 

and the design of prior art ‘906 patent in that the opposing flat outer portions have a pattern of vent 

holes and just to the inside of the vent holes is a slight diagonally downwardly protruding arcuate 

edge. In addition, the recessed central portion of the design of the Gyroor “A” hoverboard is 

defined by opposing slight diagonally downwardly protruding arcuate edges with the center 

portion having six narrow longitudinal ribs. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 413-3 Filed: 09/03/21 Page 14 of 87 PageID #:9946
12 

 Bottom view ‘723 patent Bottom view prior art ‘906 patent 

 

 Bottom view the Gyroor “A” 

 

30. In view of the above analysis of the claimed design of the ‘723 patent with the 

design of the Gyroor “A” hoverboard and the design of the prior art ‘906 patent it is my opinion 

that the overall shape and appearance and identified features of the claimed design of the ‘723 

patent are closer to the design of the prior art ‘906 patent than the design of the Gyroor “A” 

hoverboard. Furthermore, it’s my opinion that the shape and appearance of the few features 

identified that are common to the claimed design of the ’723 patent and the design the Gyroor “A” 

hoverboard not found in the design of the prior art ‘906 are substantial different such that an 

“ordinary observer”, familiar with the prior art, would not be confused so as to purchase one 

thinking it to be the other. Therefore, it’s my opinion that the design of the Gyroor “A” hoverboard 

does not infringe the claimed design of the ‘723 patent. 

B. The ‘256 Patent, Prior Art ‘906 Patent and Gyroor “A” 

 Top plan view’256 patent Top plan view prior art ‘906 pat

 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 413-3 Filed: 09/03/21 Page 15 of 87 PageID #:9947
13 

Top plan view Gyroor “A” 

31. In view of the above visual depictions of the claimed design of the ‘’256 patent, the 

design of the prior art ‘906 patent and the design of the Gyroor “A” hoverboard it’s clear that they 

all have the same hour glass peripheral shape as viewed in top plan. In fact, the hour glass 

peripheral shape of the prior art ‘906 patent appears to be closer to the claimed design of the ‘256 

patent than the design of the Gyroor “A” hoverboard. Furthermore, the claimed design of the ‘256 

patent, the design of the prior art ‘906 patent and the design of the Gyroor “A” hoverboard are all 

comprised of the same general components, namely, opposing outer foot surfaces that are 

substantially flat, a concavely curved recessed center portion and wheel covers at each end. As 

will be apparent from the remaining views set forth below, namely, front, rear, side, perspective 

and bottom, the specific shape and appearance of the surfaces and features of the design of the 

prior art ‘906 patent are, in my opinion, closer to the claimed design of the ‘256 patent than the 

design of the Gyroor “A” hoverboard. For instance as can be seen in the front and rear views 

below, the concavely curved recessed center portion of the top surface of the claimed design of the 

‘256 patent and the design of the prior art ‘906 patent both have a slightly raised convex contour, 

while the corresponding center portion of the top surface of the design of the Gyroor “A” 

hoverboard is substantially flat and slightly recessed down below the opposing outer foot surfaces. 

 Front view ‘256 patent Rear view ‘256 patent 

 

Front and Rear view prior art ‘906 patent Front and Rear view Gyroor “A” 

 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 413-3 Filed: 09/03/21 Page 16 of 87 PageID #:9948
14 

32. Furthermore, it’s noted that the wheel covers at each end of the claimed design of

the ‘256 patent, the design of the prior art ‘906 patent and the design of the Gyroor “A” hoverboard 

differ from each other as shown in the top plan view and front and rear views above as well as the 

side view and perspective view below. However, it’s noted that the shape of the wheel covers in 

the claimed design of the ‘256 patent and the prior art ‘906 patent are semi-circular, while the 

wheel covers on the design of the Gyroor “A” hoverboard are somewhat squared off. It’s also 

noted that the wheel covers on the claimed design of the ‘256 patent and the design of the Gyroor 

“A” hoverboard do not extend over the entire wheel, but rather partially over the wheel. 

 Side view ‘256 patent Side view prior art ‘906 patent Side view Gyroor “A” 

 Perspective view ‘256 patent Perspective view prior art ‘906 patent 

Perspective view Gyroor “A” 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 413-3 Filed: 09/03/21 Page 17 of 87 PageID #:9949
15 

33. The only common feature on the top surface of the claimed design of the ‘256 patent 

and the design of the Gyroor “A” hoverboard not shown on the design of prior art patent ‘906 

patent is the foot pads on the opposing foot surfaces. However, it is clear from the enlarged isolated 

view below that the foot pads of the claimed design of the ‘256 patent and the design of the Gyroor

“A” hoverboard differ not only in their peripheral shape but also the decorative pattern of ribs on 

each. 

 Enlarged view of foot pads Enlarged view of foot pads 

 ‘256 patent Gyroor “A” 

 

34. The front and rear surfaces of the claimed design of the ‘256 patent and the design 

of prior art ‘906 patent are substantially similar in shape and appearance as depicted in the front 

and rear views and the perspective views above. Specifically, both designs have a vertically flat 

upper portion of the front and rear surfaces and a convexly curved lower portion that merges with 

the flat bottom surface. The only visual difference is the rounded somewhat trapezoidal shaped 

LED lights at the opposing outer ends of the rear surface of the claimed design of the ‘256 patent 

and the horizontal line on the front and rear surface of the claimed design of the ‘256 patent. On 

the contrary, while the design of the Gyroor “A” hoverboard has front and rear surfaces having a 

vertically flat upper portion and a convexly curved lower portion that merges with the bottom 

surface as the claimed design of the ‘723 patent and the design of prior art ‘906 patent, the central 

portion of the front and rear surfaces of the design of the Gyroor “A” hoverboard differs 

significantly from the claimed design of the ‘256 patent and the design of prior art ‘906 patent. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 413-3 Filed: 09/03/21 Page 18 of 87 PageID #:9950
16 

Specifically, directly below the vertically flat upper portion of the front and rear surfaces are 

recessed horizontally elongated LED lights and below the LED lights is an outwardly protruding 

horizontal band that extends inwardly and merges with the recessed central portion. Also, on the 

right front vertically flat upper portion of the design of the Gyroor “A” hoverboard is the word 

“GYROOR”. 

35. The shape and appearance of the bottom surface of the claimed design of the ‘256 

patent and the design of prior art ‘906 patent are virtually identical as illustrated in the bottom 

views below. Specifically, both the claimed design of the ‘256 patent and the design of prior art 

‘906 patent have opposing flat, plain outer portions and a smooth continuous concavely curved 

central portion which is best shown in the front and rear views above. However, the bottom surface 

of the design of the Gyroor “A” hoverboard differs from both the claimed design of the ‘256 patent 

and the design of prior art ‘906 patent in that the opposing flat outer portions have a pattern of vent 

holes and just to the inside of the vent holes is a slight diagonally downwardly protruding arcuate 

edge. In addition, the recessed central portion of the design of the Gyroor “A” hoverboard is 

defined by opposing slight diagonally downwardly protruding arcuate edges with the center 

portion having six narrow longitudinal ribs. 

 Bottom view ‘256 patent Bottom view prior art ‘906 patent 

 

Bottom view Gyroor “A” 

36. In view of the above analysis of the claimed design of the ‘256 patent with the 

design of the Gyroor “A” hoverboard and the design of the prior art ‘906 patent it is my opinion 

that the overall shape and appearance and identified features of the claimed design of the ‘256 

patent are closer to the design of the prior art ‘906 patent than the design of the Gyroor “A”

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 413-3 Filed: 09/03/21 Page 19 of 87 PageID #:9951
17 

hoverboard. Furthermore, it’s my opinion that the shape and appearance of the few features 

identified that are common to the claimed design of the ’256 patent and the design of the Gyroor

“A” hoverboard not found in the design of the prior art ‘906 are substantial different such that an 

“ordinary observer”, familiar with the prior art, would not be confused so as to purchase one 

thinking it to be the other. Therefore, it’s my opinion that the design of the Gyroor “A” hoverboard

does not infringe the claimed design of the ‘256 patent. 

C. The ‘195 Patent, Prior Art ‘906 Patent and Gyroor “A” 

 Top plan view’195 patent Top plan view prior art ’906 patent 

 

 Top plan view Gyroor “A” 

37. In view of the above visual depictions of the claimed design of the ‘195 patent, the 

design of the prior art ‘906 patent and the design of the Gyroor “A” hoverboard it’s clear that they 

all have the same hour glass peripheral shape as viewed in top plan. In fact, the hour glass 

peripheral shape of the prior art ‘906 patent appears to be closer to the claimed design of the ‘195 

patent than the design of the Gyroor “A” hoverboard. Furthermore, the claimed design of the ‘195 

patent, the design of the prior art ‘906 patent and the design of the Gyroor “A” hoverboard are all 

comprised of the same general components, namely, opposing outer foot surfaces that are 

substantially flat, a concavely curved recessed center portion and wheel covers at each end. As 

will be apparent from the remaining views set forth below, namely, front, rear, side, perspective 

and bottom the specific shape and appearance of most of the surfaces and features of the claimed 

design of the ‘195 patent, the design of the prior art ‘906 patent and the design of the Gyroor “A” 

hoverboard differ significantly from each other. However, there are some surfaces and features of 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 413-3 Filed: 09/03/21 Page 20 of 87 PageID #:9952
18 

the design of the prior art ‘906 patent that are closer in shape and appearance to the claimed design 

of the ‘195 patent than the design of the Gyroor “A” hoverboard. For instance as can be seen in 

the front and rear views below, while not in the same manner, the concavely curved recessed center 

portion of the top surface of the claimed design of the ‘195 patent and the design of the prior art 

‘906 patent protrude upwardly from the opposing outer foot surfaces, while the corresponding 

center portion of the top surface of the design of the Gyroor “A” hoverboard is substantially flat 

and slightly recessed down below the opposing outer foot surfaces. 

Front view ‘195 patent Rear view of ‘195 patent 

 

Front and Rear view prior art ‘906 patent Front and Rear view Gyroor “A” 

 

38. Furthermore, it’s noted that the wheel covers at each end of the claimed design of 

the ‘195 patent, the design of the prior art ‘906 patent and the design of the Gyroor “A” hoverboard 

differ from each other as shown in the top plan view and front and rear views above as well as the 

side view and perspective view below. However, it’s my opinion that the shape and appearance of 

the wheel covers in the claimed design of the ‘195 patent are closer to the wheel covers shown in 

broken lines in the design of the prior art ‘906 patent than the wheel covers of the design of the 

Gyroor “A” hoverboard. Specifically, the wheel covers shown on the claimed design of the ‘195 

patent and the design of the prior art ‘906 patent are both semi-circular in shape and extend over 

and cover the entire wheel, while the wheel covers on the design of the Gyroor “A” hoverboard 

are somewhat squared off and do not extend over the entire wheel, but rather partially over the 

wheel. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 413-3 Filed: 09/03/21 Page 21 of 87 PageID #:9953
19 

 Side view ‘195 patent Side view prior art ‘906 patent Side view Gyroor “A” 

 

 Perspective view ‘195 patent Perspective view prior art ‘906 patent 

 

Perspective view Gyroor “A” 

39. The front and rear surfaces of the claimed design of the ‘195 patent, the design of 

the prior art ‘906 patent and the design of the Gyroor “A” hoverboard are all dissimilar in 

appearance from one and other as depicted in the front and rear views and the perspective views 

above. Specifically, front and rear surfaces of the claimed design of the ‘195 patent have a 

concavely curved upper portion with a narrow vertically flat surface directly below it and a 

convexly curved lower portion that merges with the bottom surface. The convexly curved lower 

portion has what appear to be horizontally elongated LED lights having a knife-like appearance at 

the opposing outer ends. On the contrary, the front and rear surfaces of the design of the’906 patent 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 413-3 Filed: 09/03/21 Page 22 of 87 PageID #:9954
20 

has a vertically flat upper portion and a convexly curved lower portion that merges with the flat 

bottom surface. Furthermore, the front and rear surfaces of the design of the Gyroor “A” 

hoverboard has a vertically flat upper portion with a central portion consisting of recessed 

horizontally elongated LED lights and an outwardly protruding horizontal band that extends 

inwardly directly below the LED lights and a convexly curved lower portion that merges with the 

bottom surface. Also, on the right front vertically flat upper portion of the design of the Gyroor 

“A” hoverboard is the word “GYROOR”. 

40. The shape and appearance of the bottom surface of the claimed design of the ‘195

patent and the design of prior art ‘906 patent are somewhat similar to each other as illustrated in 

the bottom views below. Specifically, both the claimed design of the ‘195 patent and the design of 

prior art ‘906 patent have opposing flat, plain outer portions and a smooth continuous concavely 

curved central portion which is best shown in the front and rear views above. However, the 

concavely curved central portion of the claimed design of the ‘195 patent is truncated and not a 

continuous rounded surface as in the design of the prior art ‘906 patent. Furthermore, the opposing 

flat outer portions of the claimed design of the ‘195 patent include parallel arcuate lines that extend 

down from the lower convexly curved portion of the front and rear surfaces. On the contrary, the 

bottom surface of the design of the Gyroor “A” hoverboard differs from both the claimed design 

of the ‘195 patent and the design of prior art ‘906 patent in that the opposing flat outer portions 

have a pattern of vent holes and just to the inside of the vent holes is a slight diagonally 

downwardly protruding arcuate edge. In addition, the recessed central portion of the design of the 

Gyroor “A” hoverboard is defined by opposing slight diagonally downwardly protruding arcuate 

edges with the center portion having six narrow longitudinal ribs. 

 Bottom view ‘195 patent Bottom view prior art ‘906 patent 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 413-3 Filed: 09/03/21 Page 23 of 87 PageID #:9955
21 

Bottom view Gyroor “A” 

41. In view of the above analysis of the claimed design of the ‘195 patent with the 

design of the Gyroor “A” hoverboard and the design of the prior art ‘906 patent it’s my opinion 

that the claimed design of the ‘195 patent has some surfaces and features that are closer in overall 

shape and appearance to the design in the prior art patent ‘906 patent than the design of the Gyroor 

“A” hoverboard. It’s further my opinion that the shape and appearance of the surfaces and features 

of the design of the Gyroor “A” hoverboard are substantial different from the claimed design of 

the ‘195 patent that an “ordinary observer”, familiar with the prior art, would not be confused so 

as to purchase one thinking it to be the other. Therefore, it’s my opinion that the design of the 

Gyroor “A” hoverboard does not infringe the claimed design of the ‘195 patent. 

D. The ‘112 Patent, Prior Art ‘906 Patent and Gyroor “A” 

Top view ‘112 patent Top view prior art ‘906 patent 

Top view Gyroor “A” 

42. In view of the above visual depictions of the claimed design of the ‘112 patent, the 

design of the prior art ‘906 patent and the design of the Gyroor “A” hoverboard it’s clear that they 

all have the same hour glass peripheral shape as viewed in top plan. In fact, the hour glass 

peripheral shape of the prior art ‘906 patent appears to be closer to the claimed design of the ‘112 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 413-3 Filed: 09/03/21 Page 24 of 87 PageID #:9956
22 

patent than the design of the Gyroor “A” hoverboard. Furthermore, the claimed design of the ‘112 

patent, the design of the prior art ‘906 patent and the design of the Gyroor “A” hoverboard are all 

comprised of the same general components, namely, opposing outer foot surfaces that are 

substantially flat, a concavely curved recessed center portion and wheel covers at each end. As 

will be apparent from the remaining views set forth below, namely, front, rear, side, perspective 

and bottom, the specific shape and appearance of some of the surfaces and features of the claimed 

design of the ‘112 patent, the design of the prior art ‘906 patent and the design of the Gyroor “A” 

hoverboard differ significantly from each other. However, there are some surfaces and features of 

the design of the prior art ‘906 patent that are closer in shape and appearance to the claimed design 

of the ‘112 patent than the design of the Gyroor “A” hoverboard. For instance as can be seen in 

the front and rear views below, the concavely curved recessed center portion of the top surface of 

the claimed design of the ‘112 patent and the design of the prior art ‘906 patent both have a slightly 

raised convex contour, while the corresponding center portion of the top surface of the design of 

the Gyroor “A” hoverboard is substantially flat and slightly recessed down below the opposing 

outer foot surfaces. 

Front view ‘112 patent Rear view ‘112 patent 

Front and Rear view prior art ‘906 patent Front and Rear view Gyroor “A” 

43. Furthermore, it’s noted that the wheel covers at each end of the claimed design of

the ‘112 patent, the design of the prior art ‘906 patent and the design of the Gyroor “A” hoverboard 

differ from each other as shown in the top plan view and front and rear views above as well as the 

side view and perspective view below. However, it’s my opinion that the shape and appearance of 

the wheel covers in the claimed design of the ‘112 patent are closer to the wheel covers shown in 

broken lines in the design of the prior art ‘906 patent than the wheel covers of the design of the 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 413-3 Filed: 09/03/21 Page 25 of 87 PageID #:9957
23 

Gyroor “A” hoverboard. Specifically, the wheel covers shown on the claimed design of the ‘112 

patent and the design of the prior art ‘906 patent are both semi-circular in shape and extend over 

and cover the entire wheel, while the wheel covers on the design of the Gyroor “A” hoverboard 

are somewhat squared off and do not extend over the entire wheel, but rather partially over the 

wheel. 

Side view ‘112 patent Side view prior art ‘906 patent Side view Gyroor “A” 

 

 Perspective view ‘112 patent Perspective view prior art ‘906 patent 

 

Perspective view Gyroor “A” 

 

44. The front and rear surfaces of the claimed design of the ‘112 patent, the design of 

the prior art ‘906 patent and the design of the Gyroor “A” hoverboard are all dissimilar in 

appearance from one and other as depicted in the front and rear views and the perspective views 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 413-3 Filed: 09/03/21 Page 26 of 87 PageID #:9958
24 

above. Specifically, the front and rear surfaces of the claimed design of the ‘112 patent have an 

undulated upper portion with opposing arcuate elongated LED lights and a convexly curved lower 

portion that merges with the bottom surface. On the contrary, the front and rear surfaces of the 

design of the’906 patent has a vertically flat upper portion and a convexly curved lower portion 

that merges with the bottom surface. Furthermore, the front and rear surfaces of the design of the 

Gyroor “A” hoverboard has a vertically flat upper portion with a central portion consisting of 

recessed horizontally elongated LED lights and an outwardly protruding horizontal band that 

extends inwardly directly below the LED lights and merges with the recessed central portion and 

a convexly curved lower portion that merges with the bottom surface. Also, on the right front 

vertically flat upper portion of the design of the Gyroor “A” hoverboard is the word “GYROOR”. 

45. The shape and appearance of the bottom surface of the claimed design of the ‘112 

patent and the design of prior art ‘906 patent are substantially identical as illustrated in the bottom 

views below except that the opposing outer portions of the claimed design of the ‘112 patent have 

a slight upward curvature while the design of the prior art ‘906 patent has opposing flat, plain outer 

portions. However, both the claimed design of the ‘112 patent and the design of the prior art ‘906 

patent have a smooth continuous concavely curved central portion which is best shown in the front 

and rear views above. On the other hand, the bottom surface of the design of the Gyroor “A” 

hoverboard differs from both the claimed design of the ‘112 patent and the design of prior art ‘906 

patent in that the opposing flat outer portions have a pattern of vent holes and just to the inside of 

the vent holes is a slight diagonally downwardly protruding arcuate edge. In addition, the recessed 

central portion of the design of the Gyroor “A” hoverboard is defined by opposing slight diagonally 

downwardly protruding arcuate edges with the center portion having six narrow longitudinal ribs. 

Bottom view ‘112 patent Bottom view prior art ‘906 patent 

 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 413-3 Filed: 09/03/21 Page 27 of 87 PageID #:9959
25 

Bottom view of Gyroor “A” 

46. In view of the above analysis of the claimed design of the ‘112 patent with the 

design of the Gyroor “A” hoverboard and the design of the prior art ‘906 patent it is my opinion 

that the overall shape and appearance and identified features of the claimed design of the ‘112 

patent are closer to the design of the prior art ‘906 patent than the design of the Gyroor “A” 

hoverboard. It’s further my opinion that the shape and appearance of the surfaces and features of 

the design of the Gyroor “A” hoverboard are substantial different from the claimed design of the 

‘195 patent that an “ordinary observer”, familiar with the prior art, would not be confused so as to 

purchase one thinking it to be the other. Therefore, it’s my opinion that the design of the Gyroor 

“A” hoverboard does not infringe the claimed design of the ‘112 patent. 

E. The ‘723 Patent, Prior Art ‘906 Patent and Gyroor “B” 

Top plan view ‘723 patent Top plan view prior art ‘906 patent 

 

Top plan view Gyroor “B” 

47. In view of the above visual depictions of the claimed design of the ‘723 patent, the 

design of the prior art ‘906 patent and the design of the Gyroor “B” hoverboard it’s clear that they 

all have the same hour glass peripheral shape as viewed in top plan. In fact, the hour glass 

peripheral shape of the prior art ‘906 patent appears to be closer to the claimed design of the ‘723 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 413-3 Filed: 09/03/21 Page 28 of 87 PageID #:9960
26 

patent than the design of the Gyroor “B” hoverboard. Specifically, the recessed center portion of 

the claimed design of the ‘723 patent and the design of the prior art ‘906 patent are concavely 

curved, whereas the recessed center portion of the design of the Gyroor “B” hoverboard has a 

truncated “v” shape appearance comprising opposing diagonally straight edges that connect to a 

horizontally straight inner edge. In addition, the claimed design of the ‘723 patent, the design of 

the prior art ‘906 patent and the design of Gyroor “B” hoverboard are all comprised of the same 

general components, namely, opposing outer foot surfaces that are substantially flat, a recessed 

center portion and wheel covers at each end. As will be apparent from the remaining views set 

forth below, namely, front, rear, side, perspective and bottom the specific shape and appearance 

of the surfaces and features of the design of the prior art ‘906 patent are, in my opinion, closer to 

the claimed design of the ‘723 patent than the design of the Gyroor “B” hoverboard. For instance 

as can be seen in the front and rear views below, the concavely curved recessed center portion of 

the top surface of the claimed design of the ‘723 patent and the design of the prior art ‘906 patent 

both have a slightly raised convex contour, while the corresponding center portion of the top 

surface of the design of Gyroor “B” hoverboard is substantially flat and slightly recessed down 

below the opposing outer foot surfaces. 

 Front view ‘723 patent Rear view ‘723 patent 

 

 Front and Rear view prior art ‘906 patent Front and Rear view Gyroor “B” 

 

48. Furthermore, it’s noted that the wheel covers at each end of the claimed design of 

the ‘723 patent, the design of the prior art ‘906 patent and the design of the Gyroor “B” hoverboard 

differ from each other as shown in the top plan view and front and rear views above as well as the 

side view and perspective view below. However, it’s my opinion that the shape and appearance of 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 413-3 Filed: 09/03/21 Page 29 of 87 PageID #:9961
27 

the wheel covers in the claimed design of the ‘723 patent are closer to the wheel covers shown in 

broken lines in the design of the prior art ‘906 patent than the wheel covers of the design of the 

Gyroor “B” hoverboard. Specifically, the wheel covers shown on the claimed design of the ‘723 

patent and the design of the prior art ‘906 patent are both semi-circular in shape and extend over 

and cover the entire wheel, while the wheel covers on the design of Gyroor “B” hoverboard have 

opposing diagonally straight side edges a substantially flat top edge which curves outwardly but 

does not extend over the entire wheel, but rather partially over the wheel. In addition, the inner 

surface of the wheel covers on the design of Gyroor “B” hoverboard has a protruding trapezoidal 

shaped portion and the outwardly curved top surface includes the word “Gyroor”. 

Side view ‘723 patent Side view prior art ‘906 patent Side view the Gyroor “B” 

 

Perspective view ‘723 patent Perspective view prior art ‘906 patent 

 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 413-3 Filed: 09/03/21 Page 30 of 87 PageID #:9962
28 

Perspective view of Gyroor “B” 

49. The only common feature on the top surface of the claimed design of the ‘723 patent 

and the design of the Gyroor “B” hoverboard not shown on the design of prior art patent ‘906 

patent is the foot pads on the opposing foot surfaces. However, it is clear from the enlarged isolated 

view below that the foot pads of the claimed design of the ‘723 patent and the design of the Gyroor 

“B” hoverboard differ significantly in their peripheral shape as well as the decorative pattern on 

each. 

Enlarged view of foot pads Enlarged view of foot pads 

 ‘723 patent Gyroor “B” 

 

50. The front and rear surfaces of the claimed design of the ‘723 patent and the design 

of prior art ‘906 patent are substantially similar in shape and appearance as depicted in the front 

and rear views and the perspective views above. Specifically, both designs have a vertically flat 

upper portion of the front and rear surfaces and a convexly curved lower portion that merges with 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 413-3 Filed: 09/03/21 Page 31 of 87 PageID #:9963
29 

the flat bottom surface. The only visual difference is the rounded parallelogram shaped LED lights 

at the opposing outer ends of the rear surface of the claimed design of the ‘723 patent and the lines 

on the front and rear surface of the claimed design of the ‘723 patent. On the contrary, while the 

design of the Gyroor “B” hoverboard has front and rear surfaces having a convexly curved lower 

portion that merges with the bottom surface as the claimed design of the ‘723 patent and the design 

of prior art ‘906 patent, the upper portion of the front and rear surfaces of the design of the Gyroor 

“B” hoverboard differs significantly from the claimed design of the ‘723 patent and the design of 

prior art ‘906 patent. Specifically, the upper portion of the front and rear surfaces of the Gyroor 

“B” hoverboard has a wide diagonally downwardly sloping portion that merges with a narrow 

vertically straight central portion. In addition, the front and rear surfaces of the Gyroor “B” 

hoverboard has elongated asymetrcally shaped LED lights. 

51. The shape and appearance of the bottom surface of the claimed design of the ‘723 

patent and the design of prior art ‘906 patent are virtually identical as illustrated in the bottom 

views below. Specifically, both the claimed design of the ‘723 patent and the design of prior art 

‘906 patent have opposing flat, plain outer portions and a smooth continuous concavely curved 

central portion which is best shown in the front and rear views above. However, the bottom surface 

of the design of the Gyroor “B” hoverboard differs from both the claimed design of the ‘723 patent 

and the design of prior art ‘906 patent in that the opposing flat outer portions have a downwardly 

protruding surface having a pattern of vent holes and the recessed central portion is defined by 

opposing slight diagonally downwardly protruding arcuate edges with the center portion having 

four narrow longitudinal ribs. 

 Bottom view ‘723 patent Bottom view prior art ‘906 patent 

 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 413-3 Filed: 09/03/21 Page 32 of 87 PageID #:9964
30 

Bottom view Gyroor “B” 

52. In view of the above analysis of the claimed design of the ‘723 patent with the

design of the Gyroor “B” hoverboard and the design of the prior art ‘906 patent it is my opinion 

that the overall shape and appearance and identified features of the claimed design of the ‘723 

patent are closer to the design of the prior art ‘906 patent than the design of the Gyroor “B” 

hoverboard. Furthermore, it’s my opinion that the shape and appearance of the few features 

identified that are common to the claimed design of the ’723 patent and the design of the Gyroor 

“B” hoverboard not found in the design of the prior art ‘906 are substantial different such that an 

“ordinary observer”, familiar with the prior art, would not be confused so as to purchase one 

thinking it to be the other. Therefore, it’s my opinion that the design of the Gyroor “B” hoverboard 

does not infringe the claimed design of the ‘723 patent. 

F. The ‘256 Patent, Prior Art ‘906 Patent and Gyroor “B”

Top plan view ‘256 patent Top plan view prior art ‘906 patent 

Top plan view of Gyroor “B” 

53. In view of the above visual depictions of the claimed design of the ‘’256 patent, the

design of the prior art ‘906 patent and the design of the Gyroor “B” hoverboard it’s clear that they 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 413-3 Filed: 09/03/21 Page 33 of 87 PageID #:9965
31 

all have the same hour glass peripheral shape as viewed in top plan. In fact, the hour glass 

peripheral shape of the prior art ‘906 patent appears to be closer to the claimed design of the ‘256 

patent than the design of the Gyroor “B” hoverboard. Specifically, the recessed center portion of 

the claimed design of the ‘723 patent and the design of the prior art ‘906 patent are concavely 

curved, whereas the recessed center portion of the design of the Gyroor “B” hoverboard has a 

truncated “v” shape appearance comprising opposing diagonally straight edges that connect to a 

horizontally straight inner edge. In addition, the claimed design of the ‘256 patent, the design of 

the prior art ‘906 patent and the design of the Gyroor “B” hoverboard are all comprised of the 

same general components, namely, opposing outer foot surfaces that are substantially flat, a 

recessed center portion and wheel covers at each end. As will be apparent from the remaining 

views set forth below, namely, front, rear, side, perspective and bottom, the specific shape and 

appearance of the surfaces and features of the design of the prior art ‘906 patent are, in my opinion, 

closer to the claimed design of the ‘256 patent than the design of the Gyroor “B” hoverboard. For 

instance as can be seen in the front and rear views below, the concavely curved recessed center 

portion of the top surface of the claimed design of the ‘256 patent and the design of the prior art 

‘906 patent both have a slightly raised convex contour, while the corresponding center portion of 

the top surface of the design of the Gyroor “B” hoverboard is substantially flat and slightly recessed 

down below the opposing outer foot surfaces. 

Front view ‘256 patent Rear view ‘256 patent 

 

 Front and Rear view of the ‘906 patent Front and Rear view of Gyroor “B” 

 

54. Furthermore, it’s noted that the wheel covers at each end of the claimed design of 

the ‘256 patent, the design of the prior art ‘906 patent and the design of the Gyroor “B” hoverboard 

differ from each other as shown in the top plan view and front and rear views above as well as the 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 413-3 Filed: 09/03/21 Page 34 of 87 PageID #:9966
32 

side view and perspective view below. However, it’s my opinion that the shape and appearance of 

the wheel covers in the claimed design of the ‘256 patent are closer to the wheel covers shown in 

broken lines in the design of the prior art ‘906 patent than the wheel covers of the design of the 

Gyroor “B” hoverboard. Specifically, the wheel covers shown on the claimed design of the ‘256 

patent and the design of the prior art ‘906 patent are both semi-circular in shape, while the wheel 

covers on the design of Gyroor “B” hoverboard have opposing diagonally straight side edges a 

substantially flat top edge which curves outwardly. It’s also noted that the wheel covers on the 

claimed design of the ‘256 patent and the design of the Gyroor “B” hoverboard do not extend over 

the entire wheel, but rather partially over the wheel. In addition, the inner surface of the wheel 

covers on the design of Gyroor “B” hoverboard has a protruding trapezoidal shaped portion and 

the outwardly curved top surface includes the word “Gyroor”. 

Side view ‘256 patent Side view prior art ‘906 patent Side view the Gyroor “B” 

 

Perspective view ‘256 patent Perspective view prior art ‘906 patent 

 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 413-3 Filed: 09/03/21 Page 35 of 87 PageID #:9967
33 

Perspective view of Gyroor “B” 

55. The only common feature on the top surface of the claimed design of the ‘256 patent 

and the design of the Gyroor “B” hoverboard not shown on the design of prior art patent ‘906 

patent is the foot pads on the opposing foot surfaces. However, it is clear from the enlarged isolated 

view below that the foot pads of the claimed design of the ‘256 patent and the design of the Gyroor 

“B” hoverboard differ significantly in their peripheral shape as well as the decorative pattern of on 

each. 

Enlarged view of foot pads Enlarged view of foot pads 

‘256 patent Gyroor “B” 

 

56. The front and rear surfaces of the claimed design of the ‘256 patent and the design 

of prior art ‘906 patent are substantially similar in shape and appearance as depicted in the front 

and rear views and the perspective views above. Specifically, both designs have a vertically flat 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 413-3 Filed: 09/03/21 Page 36 of 87 PageID #:9968
34 

upper portion of the front and rear surfaces and a convexly curved lower portion that merges with 

the flat bottom surface. The only visual difference is the rounded somewhat trapezoidal shaped 

LED lights at the opposing outer ends of the rear surface of the claimed design of the ‘256 patent 

and the horizontal line on the front and rear surface of the claimed design of the ‘256 patent. On 

the contrary, while the design of the Gyroor “B” hoverboard has front and rear surfaces having a 

convexly curved lower portion that merges with the bottom surface as the claimed design of the 

‘256 patent and the design of prior art ‘906 patent, the upper portion of the front and rear surfaces 

of the design of the Gyroor “B” hoverboard differs significantly from the claimed design of the 

‘256 patent and the design of prior art ‘906 patent. Specifically, the upper portion of the front and 

rear surfaces of the Gyroor “B” hoverboard has a wide diagonally downwardly sloping portion 

that merges with a narrow vertically straight central portion. In addition, the front and rear surfaces 

of the Gyroor “B” hoverboard has elongated asymetrcally shaped LED lights. 

57. The shape and appearance of the bottom surface of the claimed design of the ‘256 

patent and the design of prior art ‘906 patent are virtually identical as illustrated in the bottom 

views below. Specifically, both the claimed design of the ‘256 patent and the design of prior art 

‘906 patent have opposing flat, plain outer portions and a smooth continuous concavely curved 

central portion which is best shown in the front and rear views above. However, the bottom surface 

of the design of the Gyroor “B” hoverboard differs from both the claimed design of the ‘256 patent 

and the design of prior art ‘906 patent in that the opposing flat outer portions have a downwardly 

protruding surface having a pattern of vent holes and the recessed central portion is defined by 

opposing slight diagonally downwardly protruding arcuate edges with the center portion having 

four narrow longitudinal ribs. 

Bottom view ‘256 patent Bottom view prior art ‘906 patent 

 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 413-3 Filed: 09/03/21 Page 37 of 87 PageID #:9969
35 

Bottom view of Gyroor “B” 

58. In view of the above analysis of the claimed design of the ‘256 patent with the 

design of the Gyroor “B” hoverboard and the design of the prior art ‘906 patent it is my opinion 

that the overall shape and appearance and identified features of the claimed design of the ‘256 

patent are closer to the design of the prior art ‘906 patent than the design of the Gyroor “B” 

hoverboard. Furthermore, it’s my opinion that the shape and appearance of the few features 

identified that are common to the claimed design of the ’256 patent and the design of the Gyroor 

“B” hoverboard not found in the design of the prior art ‘906 are substantial different such that an 

“ordinary observer”, familiar with the prior art, would not be confused so as to purchase one 

thinking it to be the other. Therefore, it’s my opinion that the design of the Gyroor “B” hoverboard 

does not infringe the claimed design of the ‘256 patent.

G. The ‘195 Patent, Prior Art ‘906 Patent and Gyroor “B” 

Top plan view ‘195 patent Top plan view prior art ‘906 patent

Top plan view of Gyroor “B” 

59. In view of the above visual depictions of the claimed design of the ‘195 patent, the 

design of the prior art ‘906 patent and the design of the Gyroor “B” hoverboard it’s clear that they 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 413-3 Filed: 09/03/21 Page 38 of 87 PageID #:9970
36 

all have the same hour glass peripheral shape as viewed in top plan. In fact, the hour glass 

peripheral shape of the prior art ‘906 patent appears to be closer to the claimed design of the ‘195 

patent than the design of Gyroor “B” hoverboard. Specifically, the recessed center portion of the 

claimed design of the ‘195 patent and the design of the prior art ‘906 patent are concavely curved, 

whereas the recessed center portion of the design of the Gyroor “B” hoverboard has a truncated 

“v” shape appearance comprising opposing diagonally straight edges that connect to a horizontally 

straight inner edge. In addition, the claimed design of the ‘195 patent, the design of the prior art 

‘906 patent and the design of the Gyroor “B” hoverboard are all comprised of the same general 

components, namely, opposing outer foot surfaces that are substantially flat, a recessed center 

portion and wheel covers at each end. As will be apparent from the remaining views set forth 

below, namely, front, rear, side, perspective and bottom the specific shape and appearance of most 

of the surfaces and features of the claimed design of the ‘195 patent, the design of the prior art 

‘906 patent and the design of the Gyroor “B” hoverboard differ significantly from each other. 

However, there are some surfaces and features of the design of the prior art ‘906 patent that are 

closer in shape and appearance to the claimed design of the ‘195 patent than the design of the 

Gyroor “B” hoverboard. For instance as can be seen in the front and rear views below, while not 

in the same manner, the concavely curved recessed center portion of the top surface of the claimed 

design of the ‘195 patent and the design of the prior art ‘906 patent protrude upwardly from the 

opposing outer foot surfaces, while the corresponding center portion of the top surface of the 

design of the Gyroor “B” hoverboard is substantially flat and slightly recessed down below the 

opposing outer foot surfaces. 

 Front view ‘195 patent Rear view ‘195 patent 

 

Front view prior art ‘906 patent Front view Gyroor “B” 

 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 413-3 Filed: 09/03/21 Page 39 of 87 PageID #:9971
37 

60. Furthermore, it’s noted that the wheel covers at each end of the claimed design of 

the ‘195 patent, the design of the prior art ‘906 patent and the design of the Gyroor “B” hoverboard 

differ from each other as shown in the top plan view and front and rear views above as well as the 

side view and perspective view below. However, it’s my opinion that the shape and appearance of 

the wheel covers in the claimed design of the ‘195 patent are closer to the wheel covers shown in 

broken lines in the design of the prior art ‘906 patent than the wheel covers of the design of the 

Gyroor “B” hoverboard. Specifically, the wheel covers shown on the claimed design of the ‘195 

patent and the design of the prior art ‘906 patent are both semi-circular in shape and extend over 

and cover the entire wheel, while the wheel covers on the design of Gyroor “B” hoverboard have 

opposing diagonally straight side edges a substantially flat top edge which curves outwardly but 

does not extend over the entire wheel, but rather partially over the wheel. In addition, the inner 

surface of the wheel covers on the design of Gyroor “B” hoverboard has a protruding trapezoidal 

shaped portion and the outwardly curved top surface includes the word “Gyroor”. 

Side view ‘195 patent Side view prior art ‘906 patent Side view the Gyroor “B” 

 

Perspective view ‘195 patent Perspective view prior art ‘906 patent 

 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 413-3 Filed: 09/03/21 Page 40 of 87 PageID #:9972
38 

Perspective view Gyroor “B” 

61. The front and rear surfaces of the claimed design of the ‘195 patent, the design of 

the prior art ‘906 patent and the design of the Gyroor “B” hoverboard are all dissimilar in 

appearance from one and other as depicted in the front and rear views and the perspective views 

above. Specifically, front and rear surfaces of the claimed design of the ‘195 patent have a 

concavely curved upper portion with a narrow vertically flat surface directly below it and a 

convexly curved lower portion that merges with the bottom surface. The convexly curved lower 

portion has what appear to be horizontally elongated LED lights having a knife-like appearance at 

the opposing outer ends. On the contrary, the front and rear surfaces of the design of the’906 patent 

has a vertically flat upper portion and a convexly curved lower portion that merges with the flat 

bottom surface. Furthermore, while the design of the Gyroor “B” hoverboard has front and rear 

surfaces having a convexly curved lower portion that merges with the bottom surface as the 

claimed design of the ‘195 patent and the design of prior art ‘906 patent, the upper portion of the 

front and rear surfaces of the design of the Gyroor “B” hoverboard differs significantly from the 

claimed design of the ‘195 patent and the design of prior art ‘906 patent. Specifically, the upper 

portion of the front and rear surfaces of the Gyroor “B” hoverboard has a wide diagonally 

downwardly sloping portion that merges with a narrow vertically straight central portion. In 

addition, the front and rear surfaces of the Gyroor “B” hoverboard has elongated asymetrcally 

shaped LED lights. 

62. The shape and appearance of the bottom surface of the claimed design of the ‘195 

patent and the design of prior art ‘906 patent are somewhat similar to each other as illustrated in 

the bottom views below. Specifically, both the claimed design of the ‘195 patent and the design of 

prior art ‘906 patent have opposing flat, plain outer portions and a smooth continuous concavely 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 413-3 Filed: 09/03/21 Page 41 of 87 PageID #:9973
39 

curved central portion which is best shown in the front and rear views above. However, the 

concavely curved central portion of the claimed design of the ‘195 patent is truncated and not a 

continuous rounded surface as in the design of the prior art ‘906 patent. Furthermore, the opposing 

flat outer portions of the claimed design of the ‘195 patent include parallel arcuate lines that extend 

down from the lower convexly curved portion of the front and rear surfaces. On the contrary, the 

bottom surface of the design of the Gyroor “B” hoverboard differs from both the claimed design 

of the ‘195 patent and the design of prior art ‘906 patent in that the opposing flat outer portions 

have a downwardly protruding surface having a pattern of vent holes and the recessed central 

portion is defined by opposing slight diagonally downwardly protruding arcuate edges with the 

center portion having four narrow longitudinal ribs. 

Bottom view ‘195 patent Bottom view prior art ‘906 patent 

 

Bottom view Gyroor “B” 

63. In view of the above analysis of the claimed design of the ‘195 patent with the 

design of the Gyroor “B” hoverboard and the design of the prior art ‘906 patent it’s my opinion 

that the claimed design of the ‘195 patent has some surfaces and features that are closer in overall 

shape and appearance to the design in the prior art patent ‘906 patent than the design of the Gyroor 

“B” hoverboard. It’s further my opinion that the shape and appearance of the surfaces and features 

of the design of the Gyroor “B” hoverboard are substantial different from the claimed design of 

the ‘195 patent that an “ordinary observer”, familiar with the prior art, would not be confused so 

as to purchase one thinking it to be the other. Therefore, it’s my opinion that the design of the 

Gyroor “B” hoverboard does not infringe the claimed design of the ‘195 patent. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 413-3 Filed: 09/03/21 Page 42 of 87 PageID #:9974
40 

H. The ‘112 Patent, Prior Art ‘906 Patent and Gyroor “B” 

Top plan view ‘112 patent Top plan view prior art ‘906 patent 

 

Top view Gyroor “B” 

64. In view of the above visual depictions of the claimed design of the ‘112 patent, the 

design of the prior art ‘906 patent and the design of the Gyroor “B” hoverboard it’s clear that they 

all have the same hour glass peripheral shape as viewed in top plan. In fact, the hour glass 

peripheral shape of the prior art ‘906 patent appears to be closer to the claimed design of the ‘112 

patent than the design of Gyroor “B” hoverboard. Specifically, the recessed center portion of the 

claimed design of the ‘112 patent and the design of the prior art ‘906 patent are concavely curved, 

whereas the recessed center portion of the design of the Gyroor “B” hoverboard has a truncated 

“v” shape appearance comprising opposing diagonally straight edges that connect to a horizontally 

straight inner edge. In addition, the claimed design of the ‘112 patent, the design of the prior art 

‘906 patent and the design of the Gyroor “B” hoverboard are all comprised of the same general 

components, namely, opposing outer foot surfaces that are substantially flat, a recessed center 

portion and wheel covers at each end. As will be apparent from the remaining views set forth 

below, namely, front, rear, side, perspective and bottom the specific shape and appearance of most 

of the surfaces and features of the claimed design of the ‘112 patent, the design of the prior art 

‘906 patent and the design of the Gyroor “B” hoverboard differ significantly from each other. 

However, there are some surfaces and features of the design of the prior art ‘906 patent that are 

closer in shape and appearance to the claimed design of the ‘112 patent than the design of the 

Gyroor “B” hoverboard. For instance as can be seen in the front and rear views below, the 

concavely curved recessed center portion of the top surface of the claimed design of the ‘112 patent 

and the design of the prior art ‘906 patent both have a slightly raised convex contour, while the 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 413-3 Filed: 09/03/21 Page 43 of 87 PageID #:9975
41 

corresponding center portion of the top surface of the design of the Gyroor “B” hoverboard is 

substantially flat and slightly recessed down below the opposing outer foot surfaces. 

Front view ‘112 patent Rear view ‘112 patent 

                  

Front view prior art ‘906 patent         Front view Gyroor “B

 

65. Furthermore, it’s noted that the wheel covers at each end of the claimed design of 

the ‘112 patent, the design of the prior art ‘906 patent and the design of the Gyroor “B” hoverboard 

differ from each other as shown in the top plan view and front and rear views above as well as the 

side view and perspective views below. However, it’s my opinion that the shape and appearance 

of the wheel covers in the claimed design of the ‘112 patent are closer to the wheel covers shown 

in broken lines in the design of the prior art ‘906 patent than the wheel covers of the design of the 

Gyroor “B” hoverboard. Specifically, the wheel covers shown on the claimed design of the ‘112 

patent and the design of the prior art ‘906 patent are both semi-circular in shape and extend over 

and cover the entire wheel, while the wheel covers on the design of Gyroor “B” hoverboard have 

opposing diagonally straight side edges a substantially flat top edge which curves outwardly but 

do not extend over the entire wheel, but rather partially over the wheel. In addition, the inner 

surface of the wheel covers on the design of Gyroor “B” hoverboard has a protruding trapezoidal 

shaped portion and the outwardly curved top surface includes the word “Gyroor”. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 413-3 Filed: 09/03/21 Page 44 of 87 PageID #:9976
42 

Side view ‘112 patent Side view prior art ‘906 patent Side view Gyroor “B” 

 

 Perspective view ‘112 patent Perspective view prior art ‘906 patent 

 

Perspective view Gyroor”B” 

66. The front and rear surfaces of the claimed design of the ‘112 patent, the design of 

the prior art ‘906 patent and the design of the Gyroor “B” hoverboard are all dissimilar in 

appearance from one and other as depicted in the front and rear views and the perspective views 

above. Specifically, the front and rear surfaces of the claimed design of the ‘112 patent have an 

undulated upper portion with opposing arcuate elongated LED lights and a convexly curved lower 

portion that merges with the bottom surface. On the contrary, the front and rear surfaces of the 

design of the’906 patent has a vertically flat upper portion and a convexly curved lower portion 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 413-3 Filed: 09/03/21 Page 45 of 87 PageID #:9977
43 

that merges with the bottom surface. Furthermore, while the design of the Gyroor “B” hoverboard 

has front and rear surfaces having a convexly curved lower portion that merges with the bottom 

surface as the claimed design of the ‘112 patent and the design of prior art ‘906 patent, the upper 

portion of the front and rear surfaces of the design of the Gyroor “B” hoverboard differs 

significantly from the claimed design of the ‘112 patent and the design of prior art ‘906 patent. 

Specifically, the upper portion of the front and rear surfaces of the Gyroor “B” hoverboard has a 

wide diagonally downwardly sloping portion that merges with a narrow vertically straight central 

portion. In addition, the front and rear surfaces of the Gyroor “B” hoverboard has elongated 

asymetrcally shaped LED lights. 

67. The shape and appearance of the bottom surface of the claimed design of the ‘112 

patent and the design of prior art ‘906 patent are substantially identical as illustrated in the bottom 

views below except that the opposing outer portions of the claimed design of the ‘112 patent have 

a slight upward curvature while the design of the prior art ‘906 patent has opposing flat, plain outer 

portions. However, both the claimed design of the ‘112 patent and the design of the prior art ‘906 

patent have a smooth continuous concavely curved central portion which is best shown in the front 

and rear views above. On the other hand, the bottom surface of the design of the Gyroor “B” 

hoverboard differs from both the claimed design of the ‘112 patent and the design of prior art ‘906 

patent in that the opposing flat outer portions have a downwardly protruding surface having a 

pattern of vent holes and the recessed central portion is defined by opposing slight diagonally 

downwardly protruding arcuate edges with the center portion having four narrow longitudinal ribs. 

 Bottom view ‘112 patent Bottom view prior art ‘906 patent 

 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 413-3 Filed: 09/03/21 Page 46 of 87 PageID #:9978
44 

Bottom view Gyroor”B” 

68. In view of the above analysis of the claimed design of the ‘112 patent with the 

design of the Gyroor “B” hoverboard and the design of the prior art ‘906 patent it’s my opinion 

that the claimed design of the ‘112 patent has some surfaces and features that are closer in overall 

shape and appearance to the design in the prior art patent ‘906 patent than the design of the Gyroor 

“B” hoverboard. It’s further my opinion that the shape and appearance of the surfaces and features 

of the design of the Gyroor “B” hoverboard are substantial different from the claimed design of 

the ‘112 patent that an “ordinary observer”, familiar with the prior art, would not be confused so 

as to purchase one thinking it to be the other. Therefore, it’s my opinion that the design of the 

Gyroor “B” hoverboard does not infringe the claimed design of the ‘112 patent. 

I. The ‘723 Patent, Prior Art ‘906 Patent and Gyroor “C” 

Top plan view ‘723 patent Top plan view prior art ‘906 patent 

 

Top plan view Gyroor “C” 

69. In view of the above visual depictions of the claimed design of the ‘723 patent, the 

design of the prior art ‘906 patent and the design of the Gyroor “C” hoverboard it’s clear that they 

all have the same hour glass peripheral shape as viewed in top plan. In fact, the hour glass 

peripheral shape of the prior art ‘906 patent appears to be closer to the claimed design of the ‘723 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 413-3 Filed: 09/03/21 Page 47 of 87 PageID #:9979
45 

patent than the design of the Gyroor “C” hoverboard. Furthermore, the claimed design of the ‘723 

patent, the design of the prior art ‘906 patent and the design of the Gyroor “C” hoverboard are all 

comprised of the same general components, namely, opposing outer foot surfaces that are 

substantially flat, a concavely curved recessed center portion and wheel covers at each end. As 

will be apparent from the remaining views set forth below, namely, front, rear, side, perspective 

and bottom the specific shape and appearance of the surfaces and features of the design of the prior 

art ‘906 patent are, in my opinion, closer to the claimed design of the ‘723 patent than the design 

of the Gyroor “C” hoverboard. For instance as can be seen in the front and rear views below, the 

concavely curved recessed center portion of the top surface of the claimed design of the ‘723 patent 

and the design of the prior art ‘906 patent both have a slightly raised convex contour, while the 

corresponding center portion of the top surface of the design of the Gyroor “C” hoverboard is 

substantially flat and slightly recessed down below the opposing outer foot surfaces. 

Front view ‘723 patent Rear view ‘723 patent 

 

Front and Rear view prior art ‘906 patent Front and Rear view Gyroor “C” 

 

70. Furthermore, it’s noted that the wheel covers at each end of the claimed design of 

the ‘723 patent, the design of the prior art ‘906 patent and the design of the Gyroor “C” hoverboard 

are all semi-circular in shape. However, the wheel covers of the ‘723 patent, the design of the prior 

art ‘906 patent extend over and cover the entire wheel, while the wheel covers on the design of 

Gyroor “C” hoverboard do not extend down over the wheel. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 413-3 Filed: 09/03/21 Page 48 of 87 PageID #:9980
46 

Side view ‘723 patent Side view prior art ‘906 patent Side view the Gyroor “C” 

 

Perspective view ‘723 patent Perspective view prior art ‘906 patent 

 

Perspective view of Gyroor “C” 

71. The only common feature on the top surface of the claimed design of the ‘723 patent 

and the design of the Gyroor “C” hoverboard not shown on the design of prior art patent ‘906 

patent is the foot pads on the opposing foot surfaces. However, it is clear from the enlarged isolated 

view below that the foot pads of the claimed design of the ‘723 patent and the design of the Gyroor 

“C” hoverboard differ significantly in their peripheral shape as well as the decorative pattern of on 

each. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 413-3 Filed: 09/03/21 Page 49 of 87 PageID #:9981
47 

Enlarged view of foot pads 723 patent Enlarged view of foot pads Gyroor ‘C 

 

72. The front and rear surfaces of the claimed design of the ‘723 patent and the design 

of prior art ‘906 patent are substantially similar in shape and appearance as depicted in the front 

and rear views and the perspective views above. Specifically, both designs have a vertically flat 

upper portion of the front and rear surfaces and a convexly curved lower portion that merges with 

the flat bottom surface. The only visual difference is the rounded parallelogram shaped LED lights 

at the opposing outer ends of the rear surface of the claimed design of the ‘723 patent and the lines 

on the front and rear surface of the claimed design of the ‘723 patent. On the contrary, while the 

design of the Gyroor “C” hoverboard has front and rear surfaces having a vertically flat upper 

portion and a convexly curved lower portion that merges with the bottom surface as the claimed 

design of the ‘723 patent and the design of prior art ‘906 patent, the central portion of the front 

and rear surfaces of the design of the Gyroor “C” hoverboard differs significantly from the claimed 

design of the ‘723 patent and the design of prior art ‘906 patent. Specifically, directly below the 

vertically flat upper portion of the front and rear surfaces are recessed horizontally elongated LED 

lights and below the LED lights is an outwardly protruding horizontal band that extends inwardly 

and merges with the recessed central portion. 

73. The shape and appearance of the bottom surface of the claimed design of the ‘723 

patent and the design of prior art ‘906 patent are virtually identical as illustrated in the bottom 

views below. Specifically, both the claimed design of the ‘723 patent and the design of prior art 

‘906 patent have opposing flat, plain outer portions and a smooth continuous concavely curved 

central portion which is best shown in the front and rear views above. However, the bottom surface 

of the design of the Gyroor “C” hoverboard differs from both the claimed design of the ‘723 patent 

and the design of prior art ‘906 patent in that the opposing flat outer portions have a pattern of vent 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 413-3 Filed: 09/03/21 Page 50 of 87 PageID #:9982
48 

holes and just to the inside of the vent holes is a slight diagonally downwardly protruding arcuate 

edge. In addition, the recessed central portion of the design of the Gyroor “C” hoverboard is 

defined by opposing slight diagonally downwardly protruding arcuate edges with the center 

portion having six narrow longitudinal ribs. 

Bottom view ‘723 patent Bottom view prior art ‘906 patent 

 

Bottom view of Gyroor “C” 

74. In view of the above analysis of the claimed design of the ‘723 patent with the 

design of the Gyroor “C: hoverboard and the design of the prior art ‘906 patent it is my opinion 

that the overall shape and appearance and identified features of the claimed design of the ‘723 

patent are closer to the design of the prior art ‘906 patent than the design of the Gyroor “C: 

hoverboard. Furthermore, it’s my opinion that the shape and appearance of the few features 

identified that are common to the claimed design of the ’723 patent and the design of the Gyroor 

“C: hoverboard not found in the design of the prior art ‘906 are substantial different such that an 

“ordinary observer”, familiar with the prior art, would not be confused so as to purchase one 

thinking it to be the other. Therefore, it’s my opinion that the design of the Gyroor “C: hoverboard 

does not infringe the claimed design of the ‘723 patent. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 413-3 Filed: 09/03/21 Page 51 of 87 PageID #:9983
49 

J. The ‘256 Patent, Prior Art ‘906 Patent and Gyroor “C” 

Top plan view ‘256 patent Top plan view prior art ‘906 patent 

 ` 

Top plan view of Gyroor “C” 

75. In view of the above visual depictions of the claimed design of the ‘’256 patent, the 

design of the prior art ‘906 patent and the design of the Gyroor “C” hoverboard it’s clear that they 

all have the same hour glass peripheral shape as viewed in top plan. In fact, the hour glass 

peripheral shape of the prior art ‘906 patent appears to be closer to the claimed design of the ‘256 

patent than the design of the Gyroor “C” hoverboard. Furthermore, the claimed design of the ‘256 

patent, the design of the prior art ‘906 patent and the design of the Gyroor “C” hoverboard are all 

comprised of the same general components, namely, opposing outer foot surfaces that are 

substantially flat, a concavely curved recessed center portion and wheel covers at each end. As 

will be apparent from the remaining views set forth below, namely, front, rear, side, perspective 

and bottom, the specific shape and appearance of the surfaces and features of the design of the 

prior art ‘906 patent are, in my opinion, closer to the claimed design of the ‘256 patent than the 

design of the Gyroor “C” hoverboard. For instance as can be seen in the front and rear views below, 

the concavely curved recessed center portion of the top surface of the claimed design of the ‘256 

patent and the design of the prior art ‘906 patent both have a slightly raised convex contour, while 

the corresponding center portion of the top surface of the design of the Gyroor “C” hoverboard is 

substantially flat and slightly recessed down below the opposing outer foot surfaces. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 413-3 Filed: 09/03/21 Page 52 of 87 PageID #:9984
50 

Front view ‘256 patent Rear view ‘256 patent 

 

 Front and Rear view prior art ‘906 patent Front and Rear view Gyroor “C” 

 

76. Furthermore, it’s noted that the wheel covers at each end of the claimed design of 

the ‘256 patent, the design of the prior art ‘906 patent and the design of the Gyroor “C” hoverboard 

are all semi-circular in shape. However, the wheel covers of the design of Gyroor “C” hoverboard 

are wider than those of the design of the ‘256 patent. 

Side view ‘256 patent Side view prior art ‘906 patent Side view the Gyroor “C” 

 

Perspective view ‘256 patent Perspective view prior art ‘906 patent 

 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 413-3 Filed: 09/03/21 Page 53 of 87 PageID #:9985
51 

Perspective view Gyroor “C” 

77. The only common feature on the top surface of the claimed design of the ‘256 patent 

and the design of the Gyroor “C” hoverboard not shown on the design of prior art patent ‘906 

patent is the foot pads on the opposing foot surfaces. However, it is clear from the enlarged isolated 

view below that the foot pads of the claimed design of the ‘256 patent and the design of the Gyroor 

“C” hoverboard differ significantly in their peripheral shape as well as the decorative pattern of on 

each. 

Enlarged view of foot pads 256 patent Enlarged view of foot pads Gyroor ‘C 

 

78. The front and rear surfaces of the claimed design of the ‘256 patent and the design 

of prior art ‘906 patent are substantially similar in shape and appearance as depicted in the front 

and rear views and the perspective views above. Specifically, both designs have a vertically flat 

upper portion of the front and rear surfaces and a convexly curved lower portion that merges with 

the flat bottom surface. The only visual difference is the rounded somewhat trapezoidal shaped 

LED lights at the opposing outer ends of the rear surface of the claimed design of the ‘256 patent 

and the horizontal line on the front and rear surface of the claimed design of the ‘256 patent. On 

the contrary, while the design of the Gyroor “C” hoverboard has front and rear surfaces having a 

vertically flat upper portion and a convexly curved lower portion that merges with the bottom 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 413-3 Filed: 09/03/21 Page 54 of 87 PageID #:9986
52 

surface as the claimed design of the ‘723 patent and the design of prior art ‘906 patent, the central 

portion of the front and rear surfaces of the design of the Gyroor “C” hoverboard differs 

significantly from the claimed design of the ‘256 patent and the design of prior art ‘906 patent. 

Specifically, directly below the vertically flat upper portion of the front and rear surfaces are 

recessed horizontally elongated LED lights and below the LED lights is an outwardly protruding 

horizontal band that extends inwardly and merges with the recessed central portion. Also, on the 

right front vertically flat upper portion of the design of. 

79. The shape and appearance of the bottom surface of the claimed design of the ‘256

patent and the design of prior art ‘906 patent are virtually identical as illustrated in the bottom 

views below. Specifically, both the claimed design of the ‘256 patent and the design of prior art 

‘906 patent have opposing flat, plain outer portions and a smooth continuous concavely curved 

central portion which is best shown in the front and rear views above. However, the bottom surface 

of the design of the Gyroor “C” hoverboard differs from both the claimed design of the ‘256 patent 

and the design of prior art ‘906 patent in that the opposing flat outer portions have a pattern of vent 

holes and just to the inside of the vent holes is a slight diagonally downwardly protruding arcuate 

edge. In addition, the recessed central portion of the design of the Gyroor “C” hoverboard is 

defined by opposing slight diagonally downwardly protruding arcuate edges with the center 

portion having six narrow longitudinal ribs. 

Bottom view ‘256 patent Bottom view prior art ‘906 patent 

Bottom view Gyroor “C” 

80. In view of the above analysis of the claimed design of the ‘256 patent with the

design of the Gyroor “C” hoverboard and the design of the prior art ‘906 patent it is my opinion 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 413-3 Filed: 09/03/21 Page 55 of 87 PageID #:9987
53 

that the overall shape and appearance and identified features of the claimed design of the ‘256 

patent are closer to the design of the prior art ‘906 patent than the design of the Gyroor “C” 

hoverboard. Furthermore, it’s my opinion that the shape and appearance of the few features 

identified that are common to the claimed design of the ’256 patent and the design of the Gyroor 

“C” hoverboard not found in the design of the prior art ‘906 are substantial different such that an 

“ordinary observer”, familiar with the prior art, would not be confused so as to purchase one 

thinking it to be the other. Therefore, it’s my opinion that the design of the Gyroor “C” hoverboard 

does not infringe the claimed design of the ‘256 patent. 

K. The ‘195 Patent, Prior Art ‘906 Patent and Gyroor “C” 

 Top plan view ‘195 patent Top plan view prior art ‘906 patent 

 

Top plan view Gyroor “C” 

 

81. In view of the above visual depictions of the claimed design of the ‘195 patent, the 

design of the prior art ‘906 patent and the design of the Gyroor “C” hoverboard it’s clear that they 

all have the same hour glass peripheral shape as viewed in top plan. In fact, the hour glass 

peripheral shape of the prior art ‘906 patent appears to be closer to the claimed design of the ‘195 

patent than the design of the Gyroor “C” hoverboard. Furthermore, the claimed design of the ‘195 

patent, the design of the prior art ‘906 patent and the design of the Gyroor “C” hoverboard are all 

comprised of the same general components, namely, opposing outer foot surfaces that are 

substantially flat, a concavely curved recessed center portion and wheel covers at each end. As 

will be apparent from the remaining views set forth below, namely, front, rear, side, perspective 

and bottom the specific shape and appearance of most of the surfaces and features of the claimed 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 413-3 Filed: 09/03/21 Page 56 of 87 PageID #:9988
54 

design of the ‘195 patent, the design of the prior art ‘906 patent and the design of the Gyroor “C” 

hoverboard differ significantly from each other. However, there are some surfaces and features of 

the design of the prior art ‘906 patent that are closer in shape and appearance to the claimed design 

of the ‘195 patent than the design of the Gyroor “C” hoverboard. For instance as can be seen in 

the front and rear views below, while not in the same manner, the concavely curved recessed center 

portion of the top surface of the claimed design of the ‘195 patent and the design of the prior art 

‘906 patent protrude upwardly from the opposing outer foot surfaces, while the corresponding 

center portion of the top surface of the design of the Gyroor “C” hoverboard is substantially flat 

and slightly recessed down below the opposing outer foot surfaces. 

Front view ‘195 patent Rear view ‘195 patent 

 

Front and Rear view prior art ‘906 patent Front and Rear view Gyroor “C” 

 

82. Furthermore, it’s noted that the wheel covers at each end of the claimed design of 

the ‘195 patent, the design of the prior art ‘906 patent and the design of the Gyroor “C” hoverboard 

are all semi-circular in shape. However, the wheel covers of the ‘195 patent, the design of the prior 

art ‘906 patent extend over and cover the entire wheel, while the wheel covers on the design of 

Gyroor “C” hoverboard do not extend down over the wheel. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 413-3 Filed: 09/03/21 Page 57 of 87 PageID #:9989
55 

Side view ‘195 patent Side view prior art ‘906 patent Side view the Gyroor “C” 

 

 Perspective view ‘195 patent Perspective view prior art ‘906 patent 

 

Perspective view Gyroor “C” 

83. The front and rear surfaces of the claimed design of the ‘195 patent, the design of 

the prior art ‘906 patent and the design of the Gyroor “C” hoverboard are all dissimilar in 

appearance from one and other as depicted in the front and rear views and the perspective views 

above. Specifically, the front and rear surfaces of the claimed design of the ‘195 patent have a 

concavely curved upper portion with a narrow vertically flat surface directly below it and a 

convexly curved lower portion that merges with the bottom surface. The convexly curved lower 

portion has what appear to be horizontally elongated LED lights having a knife-like appearance at 

the opposing outer ends. On the contrary, the front and rear surfaces of the design of the’906 patent 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 413-3 Filed: 09/03/21 Page 58 of 87 PageID #:9990
56 

has a vertically flat upper portion and a convexly curved lower portion that merges with the flat 

bottom surface. Furthermore, the front and rear surfaces of the design of the Gyroor “C” 

hoverboard has a vertically flat upper portion with a central portion consisting of recessed 

horizontally elongated LED lights and an outwardly protruding horizontal band that extends 

inwardly directly below the LED lights and a convexly curved lower portion that merges with the 

bottom surface. 

84. The shape and appearance of the bottom surface of the claimed design of the ‘195

patent and the design of prior art ‘906 patent are somewhat similar to each other as illustrated in 

the bottom views below. Specifically, both the claimed design of the ‘195 patent and the design of 

prior art ‘906 patent have opposing flat, plain outer portions and a smooth continuous concavely 

curved central portion which is best shown in the front and rear views above. However, the 

concavely curved central portion of the claimed design of the ‘195 patent is truncated and not a 

continuous rounded surface as in the design of the prior art ‘906 patent. Furthermore, the opposing 

flat outer portions of the claimed design of the ‘195 patent include parallel arcuate lines that extend 

down from the lower convexly curved portion of the front and rear surfaces. On the contrary, the 

bottom surface of the design of the Gyroor “C” hoverboard differs from both the claimed design 

of the ‘195 patent and the design of prior art ‘906 patent in that the opposing flat outer portions 

have a pattern of vent holes and just to the inside of the vent holes is a slight diagonally 

downwardly protruding arcuate edge. In addition, the recessed central portion of the design of the 

Gyroor “C” hoverboard is defined by opposing slight diagonally downwardly protruding arcuate 

edges with the center portion having six narrow longitudinal ribs. 

 Bottom view ‘195 patent Bottom view prior art ‘906 patent 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 413-3 Filed: 09/03/21 Page 59 of 87 PageID #:9991
57 

Bottom view Gyroor “C” 

85. In view of the above analysis of the claimed design of the ‘195 patent with the 

design of the Gyroor “C” hoverboard and the design of the prior art ‘906 patent it’s my opinion 

that the claimed design of the ‘195 patent has some surfaces and features that are closer in overall 

shape and appearance to the design in the prior art patent ‘906 patent than the design of the Gyroor 

“C” hoverboard. It’s further my opinion that the shape and appearance of the surfaces and features 

of the design of the Gyroor “C” hoverboard are substantial different from the claimed design of 

the ‘195 patent that an “ordinary observer”, familiar with the prior art, would not be confused so 

as to purchase one thinking it to be the other. Therefore, it’s my opinion that the design of the 

Gyroor “C” hoverboard does not infringe the claimed design of the ‘195 patent. 

L. The ‘112 Patent, Prior Art ‘906 Patent and Gyroor “C” 

Top plan view ‘112 patent Top plan view prior art ‘906 patent 

 

Top view Gyroor “C” 

86. In view of the above visual depictions of the claimed design of the ‘112 patent, the 

design of the prior art ‘906 patent and the design of the Gyroor “C” hoverboard it’s clear that they 

all have the same hour glass peripheral shape as viewed in top plan. In fact, the hour glass 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 413-3 Filed: 09/03/21 Page 60 of 87 PageID #:9992
58 

peripheral shape of the prior art ‘906 patent appears to be closer to the claimed design of the ‘112 

patent than the design of the Gyroor “C” hoverboard. Furthermore, the claimed design of the ‘112 

patent, the design of the prior art ‘906 patent and the design of the Gyroor “C” hoverboard are all 

comprised of the same general components, namely, opposing outer foot surfaces that are 

substantially flat, a concavely curved recessed center portion and wheel covers at each end. As 

will be apparent from the remaining views set forth below, namely, front, rear, side, perspective 

and bottom, the specific shape and appearance of some of the surfaces and features of the claimed 

design of the ‘112 patent, the design of the prior art ‘906 patent and the design of the Gyroor “C” 

hoverboard differ significantly from each other. However, there are some surfaces and features of 

the design of the prior art ‘906 patent that are closer in shape and appearance to the claimed design 

of the ‘112 patent than the design of the Gyroor “C” hoverboard. For instance as can be seen in 

the front and rear views below, the concavely curved recessed center portion of the top surface of 

the claimed design of the ‘112 patent and the design of the prior art ‘906 patent both have a slightly 

raised convex contour, while the corresponding center portion of the top surface of the design of 

the Gyroor “C” hoverboard is substantially flat and slightly recessed down below the opposing 

outer foot surfaces. 

Front view ‘112 patent Rear view ‘112 patent 

Front and Rear view prior art ‘906 patent Front and Rear view Gyroor “C” 

87. Furthermore, it’s noted that the wheel covers at each end of the claimed design of

the ‘112 patent, the design of the prior art ‘906 patent and the design of the Gyroor “C” hoverboard 

are all semi-circular in shape. However, the wheel covers of the design of Gyroor “C” hoverboard 

are wider than those of the design of the ‘112 patent. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 413-3 Filed: 09/03/21 Page 61 of 87 PageID #:9993
59 

Side view ‘112 patent Side view prior art ‘906 patent Side view Gyroor”C” 

 

 Perspective view ‘112 patent Perspective view prior art ‘906 patent 

 

Perspective view Gyroor “C” 

88. The front and rear surfaces of the claimed design of the ‘112 patent, the design of 

the prior art ‘906 patent and the design of the Gyroor “C” hoverboard are all dissimilar in 

appearance from one and other as depicted in the front and rear views and the perspective views 

above. Specifically, the front and rear surfaces of the claimed design of the ‘112 patent have an 

undulated upper portion with opposing arcuate elongated LED lights and a convexly curved lower 

portion that merges with the bottom surface. On the contrary, the front and rear surfaces of the 

design of the’906 patent has a vertically flat upper portion and a convexly curved lower portion 

that merges with the bottom surface. Furthermore, the front and rear surfaces of the design of the 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 413-3 Filed: 09/03/21 Page 62 of 87 PageID #:9994
60 

Gyroor “C” hoverboard has a vertically flat upper portion with a central portion consisting of 

recessed horizontally elongated LED lights and an outwardly protruding horizontal band that 

extends inwardly directly below the LED lights and merges with the recessed central portion and 

a convexly curved lower portion that merges with the bottom surface. 

89. The shape and appearance of the bottom surface of the claimed design of the ‘112 

patent and the design of prior art ‘906 patent are substantially identical as illustrated in the bottom 

views below except that the opposing outer portions of the claimed design of the ‘112 patent have 

a slight upward curvature while the design of the prior art ‘906 patent has opposing flat, plain outer 

portions. However, both the claimed design of the ‘112 patent and the design of the prior art ‘906 

patent have a smooth continuous concavely curved central portion which is best shown in the front 

and rear views above. On the other hand, the bottom surface of the design of the Gyroor “C” 

hoverboard differs from both the claimed design of the ‘112 patent and the design of prior art ‘906 

patent in that the opposing flat outer portions have a pattern of vent holes and just to the inside of 

the vent holes is a slight diagonally downwardly protruding arcuate edge. In addition, the recessed 

central portion of the design of the Gyroor “C” hoverboard is defined by opposing slight diagonally 

downwardly protruding arcuate edges with the center portion having six narrow longitudinal ribs. 

Bottom view ‘112 patent Bottom view prior art ‘906 patent 

 

Bottom view of Gyroor “C” 

90. In view of the above analysis of the claimed design of the ‘112 patent with the 

design of the Gyroor “C” hoverboard and the design of the prior art ‘906 patent it is my opinion 

that the overall shape and appearance and identified features of the claimed design of the ‘112 

patent are closer to the design of the prior art ‘906 patent than the design of the Gyroor “C” 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 413-3 Filed: 09/03/21 Page 63 of 87 PageID #:9995
61 

hoverboard. It’s further my opinion that the shape and appearance of the surfaces and features of 

the design of the Gyroor “C” hoverboard are substantial different from the claimed design of the 

‘195 patent that an “ordinary observer”, familiar with the prior art, would not be confused so as to 

purchase one thinking it to be the other. Therefore, it’s my opinion that the design of the Gyroor 

“C” hoverboard does not infringe the claimed design of the ‘112 patent. 

M. The ‘723 Patent, Prior Art ‘906 Patent and Gyroor “D” 

Top plan view ‘723 patent Top plan view prior art ‘906 patent 

 

Top plan view Gyroor”D” 

91. In view of the above visual depictions of the claimed design of the ‘723 patent, the 

design of the prior art ‘906 patent and the design of the Gyroor “D” hoverboard it’s clear that they 

all have the same hour glass peripheral shape as viewed in top plan. In fact, the hour glass 

peripheral shape of the prior art ‘906 patent appears to be closer to the claimed design of the ‘723 

patent than the design of the Gyroor “D” hoverboard. Specifically, the recessed center portion of 

the claimed design of the ‘723 patent and the design of the prior art ‘906 patent are concavely 

curved, whereas the recessed center portion of the design of the Gyroor “D” hoverboard has a 

truncated “v” shape appearance comprising opposing diagonally straight edges that connect to a 

horizontally straight inner edge. In addition, the claimed design of the ‘723 patent, the design of 

the prior art ‘906 patent and the design of Gyroor “D” hoverboard are all comprised of the same 

general components, namely, opposing outer foot surfaces that are substantially flat, a recessed 

center portion and wheel covers at each end. As will be apparent from the remaining views set 

forth below, namely, front, rear, side, perspective and bottom the specific shape and appearance 

of the surfaces and features of the design of the prior art ‘906 patent are, in my opinion, closer to 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 413-3 Filed: 09/03/21 Page 64 of 87 PageID #:9996
62 

the claimed design of the ‘723 patent than the design of the Gyroor “D” hoverboard. For instance 

as can be seen in the front and rear views below, the concavely curved recessed center portion of 

the top surface of the claimed design of the ‘723 patent and the design of the prior art ‘906 patent 

both have a slightly raised convex contour, while the corresponding center portion of the top 

surface of the design of the Gyroor “D” hoverboard is slightly recessed down below the opposing 

outer foot surfaces and has a pattern of longitudinal ribs that extend down onto the front and rear 

surfaces. 

Front view ‘723 patent Rear view ‘723 patent 

 

Front and Rear view prior art ‘906 patent Front and Rear view Gyroor “D” 

 

92. Furthermore, it’s noted that the wheel covers at each end of the claimed design of 

the ‘723 patent, the design of the prior art ‘906 patent and the design of the Gyroor “D” hoverboard 

differ from each other as shown in the top plan view and front and rear views above as well as the 

side view and perspective view below. However, it’s my opinion that the shape and appearance of 

the wheel covers in the claimed design of the ‘723 patent are closer to the wheel covers shown in 

broken lines in the design of the prior art ‘906 patent than the wheel covers of the design of the 

Gyroor “D” hoverboard. Specifically, the wheel covers shown on the claimed design of the ‘723 

patent and the design of the prior art ‘906 patent are both semi-circular in shape and extend over 

and cover the entire wheel, while the wheel covers on the design of Gyroor “D” hoverboard have 

opposing diagonally straight side edges a substantially flat top edge which curves outwardly but 

does not extend over the entire wheel. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 413-3 Filed: 09/03/21 Page 65 of 87 PageID #:9997
63 

 Side view ‘723 patent Side view prior art ‘906 patent Side view the Gyroor “D” 

 

Perspective view ‘723 patent Perspective view prior art ‘906 patent 

 

Perspective view Gyroor “D” 

93. The only common feature on the top surface of the claimed design of the ‘723 patent 

and the design of the Gyroor “D” hoverboard not shown on the design of prior art patent ‘906 

patent is the foot pads on the opposing foot surfaces. However, it is clear from the enlarged isolated 

view below that the foot pads of the claimed design of the ‘723 patent and the design of the Gyroor 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 413-3 Filed: 09/03/21 Page 66 of 87 PageID #:9998
64 

“D” hoverboard differ significantly in their peripheral shape as well as the decorative pattern of 

on each. 

Enlarged view of foot pads ‘723 patent \Enlarged view of foot pads Gyroor “D” 

94. The front and rear surfaces of the claimed design of the ‘723 patent and the design

of prior art ‘906 patent are substantially similar in shape and appearance as depicted in the front 

and rear views and the perspective views above. Specifically, both designs have a vertically flat 

upper portion of the front and rear surfaces and a convexly curved lower portion that merges with 

the flat bottom surface. The only visual difference is the rounded parallelogram shaped LED lights 

at the opposing outer ends of the rear surface of the claimed design of the ‘723 patent and the lines 

on the front and rear surface of the claimed design of the ‘723 patent. On the contrary, while the 

design of the Gyroor “D” hoverboard has front and rear surfaces having a vertically flat upper 

portion and a convexly curved lower portion that merges with the bottom surface as the claimed 

design of the ‘723 patent and the design of prior art ‘906 patent, the central portion of the front 

and rear surfaces of the design of the Gyroor “D” hoverboard differs significantly from the claimed 

design of the ‘723 patent and the design of prior art ‘906 patent as illustrated in the enlarged partial 

view below. 

Enlarged Partial View Gyroor “D” 

In addition, the recessed center portion of the front and rear surfaces of the Gyroor “D” hoverboard 

has spaced vertical ribs, and the right front vertically flat upper portion includes the word 

“GYROOR”. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 413-3 Filed: 09/03/21 Page 67 of 87 PageID #:9999
65 

95. The shape and appearance of the bottom surface of the claimed design of the ‘723 

patent and the design of prior art ‘906 patent are virtually identical as illustrated in the bottom 

views below. Specifically, both the claimed design of the ‘723 patent and the design of prior art 

‘906 patent have opposing flat, plain outer portions and a smooth continuous concavely curved 

central portion which is best shown in the front and rear views above. However, the bottom surface 

of the design of the Gyroor “D” hoverboard differs from both the claimed design of the ‘723 patent 

and the design of prior art ‘906 patent in that the opposing flat outer portions have a pattern of vent 

holes and just to the inside of the vent holes is a diagonally downwardly protruding edge. In 

addition, the recessed central portion of the design of the Gyroor “D” hoverboard has a pattern of 

longitudinal ribs that extend down from the front and rear surfaces. 

 Bottom view ‘723 patent Bottom view prior art ‘906 patent 

 

Bottom view Gyroor “D” 

96. In view of the above analysis of the claimed design of the ‘723 patent with the 

design of the Gyroor “D” hoverboard and the design of the prior art ‘906 patent it is my opinion 

that the overall shape and appearance and identified features of the claimed design of the ‘723 

patent are closer to the design of the prior art ‘906 patent than the design of the Gyroor “D” 

hoverboard. Furthermore, it’s my opinion that the shape and appearance of the few features 

identified that are common to the claimed design of the ’723 patent and the design of the Gyroor 

“D” hoverboard not found in the design of the prior art ‘906 are substantial different such that an 

“ordinary observer”, familiar with the prior art, would not be confused so as to purchase one 

thinking it to be the other. Therefore, it’s my opinion that the design of the Gyroor “D” hoverboard 

does not infringe the claimed design of the ‘723 patent. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 413-3 Filed: 09/03/21 Page 68 of 87 PageID #:10000
66 

N. The ‘256 Patent, Prior Art ‘906 Patent and Gyroor “D” 

Top plan view ‘256 patent Top plan view prior art ‘906 patent 

 

Top plan view Gyroor”D” 

97. In view of the above visual depictions of the claimed design of the ‘’256 patent, the 

design of the prior art ‘906 patent and the design of the Gyroor “D” hoverboard it’s clear that they 

all have the same hour glass peripheral shape as viewed in top plan. In fact, the hour glass 

peripheral shape of the prior art ‘906 patent appears to be closer to the claimed design of the ‘256 

patent than the design of the Gyroor “D” hoverboard. Specifically, the recessed center portion of 

the claimed design of the ‘256 patent and the design of the prior art ‘906 patent are concavely 

curved, whereas the recessed center portion of the design of the Gyroor “D” hoverboard has a 

truncated “v” shape appearance comprising opposing diagonally straight edges that connect to a 

horizontally straight inner edge. In addition, the claimed design of the ‘256 patent, the design of 

the prior art ‘906 patent and the design of the Gyroor “D” hoverboard are all comprised of the 

same general components, namely, opposing outer foot surfaces that are substantially flat, a 

recessed center portion and wheel covers at each end. As will be apparent from the remaining 

views set forth below, namely, front, rear, side, perspective and bottom, the specific shape and 

appearance of the surfaces and features of the design of the prior art ‘906 patent are, in my opinion, 

closer to the claimed design of the ‘256 patent than the design of the Gyroor “D” hoverboard. For 

instance as can be seen in the front and rear views below, the concavely curved recessed center 

portion of the top surface of the claimed design of the ‘256 patent and the design of the prior art 

‘906 patent both have a slightly raised convex contour, while the corresponding center portion of 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 413-3 Filed: 09/03/21 Page 69 of 87 PageID #:10001
67 

the top surface of the design of the Gyroor “D” hoverboard is slightly recessed down below the 

opposing outer foot surfaces and has a pattern of longitudinal ribs that extend down onto the front 

and rear surfaces. 

 Front view ‘256 patent Rear view ‘256 patent 

 

Front and Rear view prior art ‘906 patent Front and Rear view Gyroor “D” 

 

98. Furthermore, it’s noted that the wheel covers at each end of the claimed design of 

the ‘256 patent, the design of the prior art ‘906 patent and the design of the Gyroor “D” hoverboard 

differ from each other as shown in the top plan view and front and rear views above as well as the 

side view and perspective view below. However, it’s my opinion that the shape and appearance of 

the wheel covers in the claimed design of the ‘256 patent are closer to the wheel covers shown in 

broken lines in the design of the prior art ‘906 patent than the wheel covers of the design of the 

Gyroor “D” hoverboard. Specifically, the wheel covers shown on the claimed design of the ‘256 

patent and the design of the prior art ‘906 patent are both semi-circular in shape, while the wheel 

covers on the design of Gyroor “D” hoverboard have opposing diagonally straight side edges a 

substantially flat top edge which curves outwardly. It’s also noted that the wheel covers on the 

claimed design of the ‘256 patent and the design of the Gyroor “D” hoverboard do not extend over 

the entire wheel. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 413-3 Filed: 09/03/21 Page 70 of 87 PageID #:10002
68 

Side view ‘256 patent Side view prior art ‘906 patent Side view the Gyroor “D” 

Perspective view ‘256 patent Perspective view prior art ‘906 patent 

Perspective view Gyroor “D” 

99. The only common feature on the top surface of the claimed design of the ‘256 patent

and the design of the Gyroor “D” hoverboard not shown on the design of prior art patent ‘906 

patent is the foot pads on the opposing foot surfaces. However, it is clear from the enlarged isolated 

view below that the foot pads of the claimed design of the ‘723 patent and the design of the Gyroor 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 413-3 Filed: 09/03/21 Page 71 of 87 PageID #:10003
69 

“D” hoverboard differ significantly in their peripheral shape as well as the decorative pattern of 

on each. 

Enlarged view of foot pads ‘256 patent Enlarged view of foot pads Gyroor “D”

 

100. The front and rear surfaces of the claimed design of the ‘256 patent and the design 

of prior art ‘906 patent are substantially similar in shape and appearance as depicted in the front 

and rear views and the perspective views above. Specifically, both designs have a vertically flat 

upper portion of the front and rear surfaces and a convexly curved lower portion that merges with 

the flat bottom surface. The only visual difference is the rounded somewhat trapezoidal shaped 

LED lights at the opposing outer ends of the rear surface of the claimed design of the ‘256 patent 

and the horizontal line on the front and rear surface of the claimed design of the ‘256 patent. On 

the contrary, while the design of the Gyroor “D” hoverboard has front and rear surfaces having a 

vertically flat upper portion and a convexly curved lower portion that merges with the bottom 

surface as the claimed design of the ‘256 patent and the design of prior art ‘906 patent, the central 

portion of the front and rear surfaces of the design of the Gyroor “D” hoverboard differs 

significantly from the claimed design of the ‘256 patent and the design of prior art ‘906 patent as 

illustrated in the enlarged partial view below. 

Enlarged Partial View Gyroor “D” 

In addition, the recessed center portion of the front and rear surfaces of the Gyroor “D” hoverboard 

has spaced vertical ribs, and the right front vertically flat upper portion includes the word 

“GYROOR”. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 413-3 Filed: 09/03/21 Page 72 of 87 PageID #:10004
70 

101. The shape and appearance of the bottom surface of the claimed design of the ‘256 

patent and the design of prior art ‘906 patent are virtually identical as illustrated in the bottom 

views below. Specifically, both the claimed design of the ‘256 patent and the design of prior art 

‘906 patent have opposing flat, plain outer portions and a smooth continuous concavely curved 

central portion which is best shown in the front and rear views above. However, the bottom surface 

of the design of the Gyroor “D” hoverboard differs from both the claimed design of the ‘256 patent 

and the design of prior art ‘906 patent in that the opposing flat outer portions have a pattern of vent 

holes and just to the inside of the vent holes is a diagonally downwardly protruding edge. In 

addition, the recessed central portion of the design of the Gyroor “D” hoverboard has a pattern of 

longitudinal ribs that extend down from the front and rear surfaces. 

Bottom view ‘256 patent Bottom view prior art ‘906 patent 

 

Bottom view Gyroor “D” 

102. In view of the above analysis of the claimed design of the ‘256 patent with the 

design of the Gyroor “D” hoverboard and the design of the prior art ‘906 patent it is my opinion 

that the overall shape and appearance and identified features of the claimed design of the ‘256 

patent are closer to the design of the prior art ‘906 patent than the design of the Gyroor “D” 

hoverboard. Furthermore, it’s my opinion that the shape and appearance of the few features 

identified that are common to the claimed design of the ’256 patent and the design of the Gyroor 

“D” hoverboard not found in the design of the prior art ‘906 are substantial different such that an 

“ordinary observer”, familiar with the prior art, would not be confused so as to purchase one 

thinking it to be the other. Therefore, it’s my opinion that the design of the Gyroor “D” hoverboard 

does not infringe the claimed design of the ‘256 patent. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 413-3 Filed: 09/03/21 Page 73 of 87 PageID #:10005
71 

O. The ‘195 Patent, Prior Art ‘906 Patent and Gyroor “D” 

Top plan view ‘195 patent Top plan view prior art ‘906 patent 

 

Top plan view Gyroor “D” 

In view of the above visual depictions of the claimed design of the ‘195 patent, the design of the 

prior art ‘906 patent and the design of the Gyroor “D” hoverboard it’s clear that they all have the 

same hour glass peripheral shape as viewed in top plan. In fact, the hour glass peripheral shape of 

the prior art ‘906 patent appears to be closer to the claimed design of the ‘195 patent than the 

design of Gyroor “D” hoverboard. Specifically, the recessed center portion of the claimed design 

of the ‘195 patent and the design of the prior art ‘906 patent are concavely curved, whereas the 

recessed center portion of the design of the Gyroor “D” hoverboard has a truncated “v” shape 

appearance comprising opposing diagonally straight edges that connect to a horizontally straight 

inner edge. In addition, the claimed design of the ‘195 patent, the design of the prior art ‘906 patent 

and the design of the Gyroor “D” hoverboard are all comprised of the same general components, 

namely, opposing outer foot surfaces that are substantially flat, a recessed center portion and wheel 

covers at each end. As will be apparent from the remaining views set forth below, namely, front, 

rear, side, perspective and bottom the specific shape and appearance of most of the surfaces and 

features of the claimed design of the ‘195 patent, the design of the prior art ‘906 patent and the 

design of the Gyroor “D” hoverboard differ significantly from each other. However, there are some 

surfaces and features of the design of the prior art ‘906 patent that are closer in shape and 

appearance to the claimed design of the ‘195 patent than the design of the Gyroor “D” hoverboard. 

For instance as can be seen in the front and rear views below, while not in the same manner, the 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 413-3 Filed: 09/03/21 Page 74 of 87 PageID #:10006
72 

concavely curved recessed center portion of the top surface of the claimed design of the ‘195 patent 

and the design of the prior art ‘906 patent protrude upwardly from the opposing outer foot surfaces, 

while the corresponding center portion of the top surface of the design of the Gyroor “D” 

hoverboard is slightly recessed down below the opposing outer foot surfaces and has a pattern of 

longitudinal ribs that extend down onto the front and rear surfaces. 

Front view ‘195 patent Rear view ‘195 patent 

Front and Rear view prior art ‘906 patent Front and Rear view Gyroor “D” 

103. Furthermore, it’s noted that the wheel covers at each end of the claimed design of

the ‘195 patent, the design of the prior art ‘906 patent and the design of the Gyroor “D” hoverboard 

differ from each other as shown in the top plan view and front and rear views above as well as the 

side view and perspective view below. However, it’s my opinion that the shape and appearance of 

the wheel covers in the claimed design of the ‘195 patent are closer to the wheel covers shown in 

broken lines in the design of the prior art ‘906 patent than the wheel covers of the design of the 

Gyroor “D” hoverboard. Specifically, the wheel covers shown on the claimed design of the ‘195 

patent and the design of the prior art ‘906 patent are both semi-circular in shape and extend over 

and cover the entire wheel, while the wheel covers on the design of Gyroor “D” hoverboard have 

opposing diagonally straight side edges a substantially flat top edge which curves outwardly but 

does not extend over the entire wheel. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 413-3 Filed: 09/03/21 Page 75 of 87 PageID #:10007
73 

Side view ‘195 patent Side view prior art ‘906 patent Side view the Gyroor “D” 

 

Perspective view ‘195 patent Perspective view prior art ‘906 patent 

 

Perspective view Gyroor “D” 

104. The front and rear surfaces of the claimed design of the ‘195 patent, the design of 

the prior art ‘906 patent and the design of the Gyroor “D” hoverboard are all dissimilar in 

appearance from one and other as depicted in the front and rear views and the perspective views 

above. Specifically, front and rear surfaces of the claimed design of the ‘195 patent have a 

concavely curved upper portion with a narrow vertically flat surface directly below it and a 

convexly curved lower portion that merges with the bottom surface. The convexly curved lower 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 413-3 Filed: 09/03/21 Page 76 of 87 PageID #:10008
74 

portion has what appear to be horizontally elongated LED lights having a knife-like appearance at 

the opposing outer ends. On the contrary, the front and rear surfaces of the design of the’906 patent 

has a vertically flat upper portion and a convexly curved lower portion that merges with the flat 

bottom surface. Furthermore, the Gyroor “D” hoverboard has front and rear surfaces having a 

vertically flat upper portion and a convexly curved lower portion that merges with the bottom 

surface as the design of prior art ‘906 patent. However, the central portion of the front and rear 

surfaces of the design of the Gyroor “D” hoverboard differs significantly from the claimed design 

of the ‘195 patent and the design of prior art ‘906 patent as illustrated in the enlarged partial view 

below. 

Enlarged Partial View Gyroor “D” 

In addition, the recessed center portion of the front and rear surfaces of the Gyroor “D” hoverboard 

has spaced vertical ribs, and the right front vertically flat upper portion includes the word 

“GYROOR”. 

105. The shape and appearance of the bottom surface of the claimed design of the ‘195

patent and the design of prior art ‘906 patent are somewhat similar to each other as illustrated in 

the bottom views below. Specifically, both the claimed design of the ‘195 patent and the design of 

prior art ‘906 patent have opposing flat, plain outer portions and a smooth continuous concavely 

curved central portion which is best shown in the front and rear views above. However, the 

concavely curved central portion of the claimed design of the ‘195 patent is truncated and not a 

continuous rounded surface as in the design of the prior art ‘906 patent. Furthermore, the opposing 

flat outer portions of the claimed design of the ‘195 patent include parallel arcuate lines that extend 

down from the lower convexly curved portion of the front and rear surfaces. On the contrary, the 

bottom surface of the design of the Gyroor “D” hoverboard differs from both the claimed design 

of the ‘195 patent and the design of prior art ‘906 patent in that the opposing flat outer portions 

have a pattern of vent holes and just to the inside of the vent holes is a diagonally downwardly 

protruding edge. In addition, the recessed central portion of the design of the Gyroor “D” 

hoverboard has a pattern of longitudinal ribs that extend down from the front and rear surfaces. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 413-3 Filed: 09/03/21 Page 77 of 87 PageID #:10009
75 

Bottom view ‘195 patent Bottom view prior art ‘906 patent 

 

Bottom view Gyroor “D” 

106. In view of the above analysis of the claimed design of the ‘195 patent with the 

design of the Gyroor “D” hoverboard and the design of the prior art ‘906 patent it’s my opinion 

that the claimed design of the ‘195 patent has some surfaces and features that are closer in overall 

shape and appearance to the design in the prior art patent ‘906 patent than the design of the Gyroor 

“D” hoverboard. It’s further my opinion that the shape and appearance of the surfaces and features 

of the design of the Gyroor “D” hoverboard are substantial different from the claimed design of 

the ‘195 patent that an “ordinary observer”, familiar with the prior art, would not be confused so 

as to purchase one thinking it to be the other. Therefore, it’s my opinion that the design of the 

Gyroor “D” hoverboard does not infringe the claimed design of the ‘195 patent. 

P. The ‘112 Patent, Prior Art ‘906 Patent and Gyroor “D” 

Top plan view ‘112 patent Top plan view prior art ‘906 patent 

 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 413-3 Filed: 09/03/21 Page 78 of 87 PageID #:10010
76 

Top view Gyroor “D” 

107. In view of the above visual depictions of the claimed design of the ‘112 patent, the 

design of the prior art ‘906 patent and the design of the Gyroor “D” hoverboard it’s clear that they 

all have the same hour glass peripheral shape as viewed in top plan. In fact, the hour glass 

peripheral shape of the prior art ‘906 patent appears to be closer to the claimed design of the ‘112 

patent than the design of Gyroor “D” hoverboard. Specifically, the recessed center portion of the 

claimed design of the ‘112 patent and the design of the prior art ‘906 patent are concavely curved, 

whereas the recessed center portion of the design of the Gyroor “D” hoverboard has a truncated 

“v” shape appearance comprising opposing diagonally straight edges that connect to a horizontally 

straight inner edge. In addition, the claimed design of the ‘112 patent, the design of the prior art 

‘906 patent and the design of the Gyroor “D” hoverboard are all comprised of the same general 

components, namely, opposing outer foot surfaces that are substantially flat, a recessed center 

portion and wheel covers at each end. As will be apparent from the remaining views set forth 

below, namely, front, rear, side, perspective and bottom the specific shape and appearance of most 

of the surfaces and features of the claimed design of the ‘112 patent, the design of the prior art 

‘906 patent and the design of the Gyroor “D” hoverboard differ significantly from each other. 

However, there are some surfaces and features of the design of the prior art ‘906 patent that are 

closer in shape and appearance to the claimed design of the ‘112 patent than the design of the 

Gyroor “D” hoverboard. For instance as can be seen in the front and rear views below, the 

concavely curved recessed center portion of the top surface of the claimed design of the ‘112 patent 

and the design of the prior art ‘906 patent both have a slightly raised convex contour, while the 

corresponding center portion of the top surface of the design of the Gyroor “D” hoverboard is 

slightly recessed down below the opposing outer foot surfaces and has a pattern of longitudinal 

ribs that extend down onto the front and rear surfaces. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 413-3 Filed: 09/03/21 Page 79 of 87 PageID #:10011
77 

Front view ‘112 patent Rear view ‘112 patent 

 

Front and Rear view prior art ‘906 patent Front and Rear view Gyroor “D” 

 

108. Furthermore, it’s noted that the wheel covers at each end of the claimed design of 

the ‘112 patent, the design of the prior art ‘906 patent and the design of the Gyroor “D” hoverboard 

differ from each other as shown in the top plan view and front and rear views above as well as the 

side view and perspective views below. However, it’s my opinion that the shape and appearance 

of the wheel covers in the claimed design of the ‘112 patent are closer to the wheel covers shown 

in broken lines in the design of the prior art ‘906 patent than the wheel covers of the design of the 

Gyroor “D” hoverboard. Specifically, the wheel covers shown on the claimed design of the ‘112 

patent and the design of the prior art ‘906 patent are both semi-circular in shape and extend over 

and cover the entire wheel, while the wheel covers on the design of Gyroor “D” hoverboard have 

opposing diagonally straight side edges a substantially flat top edge which curves outwardly but 

does not extend over the entire wheel. 

Side view ‘112 patent Side view prior art ‘906 patent Side view Gyroor “D” 

 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 413-3 Filed: 09/03/21 Page 80 of 87 PageID #:10012
78 

Perspective view ‘112 patent Perspective view prior art ‘906 patent 

Perspective view Gyroor “D” 

109. The front and rear surfaces of the claimed design of the ‘112 patent, the design of

the prior art ‘906 patent and the design of the Gyroor “D” hoverboard are all dissimilar in 

appearance from one and other as depicted in the front and rear views and the perspective views 

above. Specifically, the front and rear surfaces of the claimed design of the ‘112 patent have an 

undulated upper portion with opposing arcuate elongated LED lights and a convexly curved lower 

portion that merges with the bottom surface. On the contrary, the front and rear surfaces of the 

design of the’906 patent has a vertically flat upper portion and a convexly curved lower portion 

that merges with the bottom surface. Furthermore, the Gyroor “D” hoverboard has front and rear 

surfaces having a vertically flat upper portion and a convexly curved lower portion that merges 

with the bottom surface as the design of prior art ‘906 patent. However, the central portion of the 

front and rear surfaces of the design of the Gyroor “D” hoverboard differs significantly from the 

claimed design of the ‘195 patent and the design of prior art ‘906 patent as illustrated in the 

enlarged partial view below. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 413-3 Filed: 09/03/21 Page 81 of 87 PageID #:10013
79 

Enlarged Partial View Gyroor “D” 

In addition, the recessed center portion of the front and rear surfaces of the Gyroor “D” hoverboard 

has spaced vertical ribs, and the right front vertically flat upper portion includes the word 

“GYROOR”. 

110. The shape and appearance of the bottom surface of the claimed design of the ‘112 

patent and the design of prior art ‘906 patent are substantially identical as illustrated in the bottom 

views below except that the opposing outer portions of the claimed design of the ‘112 patent have 

a slight upward curvature while the design of the prior art ‘906 patent has opposing flat, plain outer 

portions. However, both the claimed design of the ‘112 patent and the design of the prior art ‘906 

patent have a smooth continuous concavely curved central portion which is best shown in the front 

and rear views above. On the other hand, the bottom surface of the design of the Gyroor “D” 

hoverboard differs from both the claimed design of the ‘195 patent and the design of prior art ‘906 

patent in that the opposing flat outer portions have a pattern of vent holes and just to the inside of 

the vent holes is a diagonally downwardly protruding edge. In addition, the recessed central portion 

of the design of the Gyroor “D” hoverboard has a pattern of longitudinal ribs that extend down 

from the front and rear surfaces. 

Bottom view ‘112 patent Bottom view prior art ‘906 patent 

 

Bottom view Gyroor “D” 

111. In view of the above analysis of the claimed design of the ‘112 patent with the 

design of the Gyroor “D” hoverboard and the design of the prior art ‘906 patent it’s my opinion 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 413-3 Filed: 09/03/21 Page 82 of 87 PageID #:10014
that the claimed design of the 'J J 2 patent has some surfaces and feamres that are closer in overall 

shape and appearance to the design in the prior art patent "906 patent than the design of the Gyroor 

"D" hoverboard. It's further my opinion that the shape and appearance of the surfaces and features 

of the design of the Gyroor """D..., hoverboard are substantial different from the claimed design of 

the '112 patent that an "ordinary observer", familiar with the prior art, would not be confused so 

as to purchase one tbinbng it to be the other. Therefore,, it's my opinion that the design of the 

Gyroor "D" hoverboard does not infringe the claimed design of the '112 patent. 

VI. CONCLUSION

112. For the reasons stated herein it is my opinion that an ordinary observer, conversant

with the prior art, would consider the design of the Gyroor "A", "B'', "C" and "D" hoverboards 

dissimilar in overall appearance to the claimed design of the '723, '256, '195 and '112 patents 

such that an ordinary observer would not be deceived into purchasing one, supposing it to be the 

other. Hence, it's my opinion that the design of Gyroor "A'\ "B''. "C" and ''D" hoverboards do · 

not infringe the claimed design of the '723, '256, '195 and '112 patents for the reasons stated 

above. 

Dated: 3 September 2021 

 80

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 413-3 Filed: 09/03/21 Page 83 of 87 PageID #:10015
Exhibit 1 

 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 413-3 Filed: 09/03/21 Page 84 of 87 PageID #:10016
JIM GANDY

Address: 5961 Spikerush Trail, Southport, NC 28461 Telephone No.: (910) 599-1329

QUALIFICATIONS

• Broad legal and technical background in examining design patent applications with more than 32 

years experience at the United States Patent and Trademark Office, (USPTO). 

• Expert knowledge of design patent examination practice and procedure and the application of 

statutes, rules and relevant case law for determining patentability of a claim in design patent 

applications. 

• Extensive speaking experience on behalf of the USPTO regarding the filing and examination of 

design patent applications to various audiences such as the American Intellectual Property Law 

Association, Independent Inventors Conference and the Visiting Scholars program.

• I am currently a registered patent agent with the USPTO specializing in the field of design patents.

EDUCATION

Bachelor of Science in Architectural Design Technology, 1972 Temple 

University, Philadelphia, PA.

PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE

USPTO 

Design Patent Practice Specialist, Technology Center 2900, USPTO, 1998-2005

• As the design patent practice specialist, I was in charge of all training for new and junior examiners 

as well as continuing education training for all examiners in Technology Center 2900. I was also in 

charge of making updates to Chapter 1500 Design Patents of the Manual of Patent Examining 

Procedure as well as the Design Examiner Supplemental Training Guide. 

• I also responded to inquiries about design patent practice and procedure and filing design patent 

applications from external customers on a daily basis. In my capacity as the practice specialist, I 

reviewed all cases coming back from the Courts, the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences and 

the Office of Patent Quality Review for learning points and corrective action if necessary. 

• I monitored all reissue and reexamination applications filed in the technology center and reviewed 

Office actions prepared by examiners for technical accuracy under the Office’s in–process review 

program. In addition, I would make presentations to attorneys and inventor groups on behalf of the 

USPTO to share information and learn from each other.

Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2913, USPTO, 1996-1998

• In my capacity as supervisor, I was in charge of distributing and monitoring the flow of work for 

examiners in the art unit as well as reviewing the overall quality and timeliness of the work product 

performed by examiners. 

• It was also my responsibility to train junior examiners on practice and procedure for examining 

design patent applications, including the proper application of the statutes and rules. In addition, I 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 413-3 Filed: 09/03/21 Page 85 of 87 PageID #:10017
would provide refresher training to primary examiners when necessary to assure consistency of the 

work product. 

• As supervisor I was responsible for evaluating and rating all examiners in the art unit at the end of the 

fiscal year based on the criteria for the elements under their performance appraisal plan. I was also in 

charge of the program for uniformity of examination practice for the entire Design Patent 

Technology Center. In that capacity I was responsible for the development of the Design Examiner 

Supplemental Training Guide.

Design Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2911, USPTO, 1972-1996

• As an examiner I worked primarily in class D12, "Transportation". In 1979 I was promoted to 

primary examiner and granted full signatory authority. I have experience in initiating interference 

proceedings, preparing examiner's answers for applications on appeal to the Board of Patent Appeals 

and Interferences and have examined both reexamination and reissue applications. 

• As a primary examiner I trained new examiners and occasionally assumed supervisory patent 

examiner duties in the absence of the art unit supervisor. In my 24 years as an examiner, I made 

patentability determinations in over 10,000 design patent applications examined.

Design Patent Consultant 

Since retiring from the USPTO I have on occasion counseled patent attorneys and agents in 

their filings of design patent applications at the United States Patent and Trademark Office. I have 

also prepared expert reports and testified in a deposition and at trial as an expert witness in the 

following matters:

• Complaint of Ford Global Technologies, LLC under Section 337 of The Tariff Act of 1930, 

o Prepared expert report on sufficiency of disclosure of claim under 35 USC § 112, Re U.S. 

Design Patent Nos. D498,444, D500,717, D500,969, D500,970, D501,162, D508,223, 

D510,551 and D539,448 (2008).

• Magnadyne Corp. vs. Best Buy Co., Inc.

o Prepared expert report on infringement of U.S. Design Patent No. D522,457 and lack of 

anticipation or obviousness under 35 USC § 102 and 103(a) respectively, (2010).

o Gave deposition on expert report, (2010).

• Weber-Stephen Products LLC v. Sears Holdings Corporation

o Prepared expert report on invalidity of U.S. Design Patent Nos. D564,834 and D609,045 as 

being obvious under 35 USC § 103(a) – (D564,834), and nonenabling and indefinite under 

35 USC § 112(a) and (b) and failing to comply with the written description requirement of 

35 USC § 112(a) – D564,834 and D609,045, (2015).

o Prepared expert report on non-infringement of U.S. Design Patent Nos. D564,834 and 

D609,045, (2015).

o Gave deposition on expert reports, (2015).

• Trinity Manufacturing, L.L.C.; Campbell Soup Company; and Campbell Sales Company v. Gamon 

Plus, Inc.

o Prepared Declaration in support of a Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Design Patent 

Nos. D595,074, D621,644, D621,645 and D621,646, (2016).

o Prepared Supplemental Declaration in support of Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s 

Merits Response and Declaration and Supplemental Declaration of Terry Johnson for the 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 413-3 Filed: 09/03/21 Page 86 of 87 PageID #:10018
Inter Partes review of U.S. Design Patent Nos. D621,645 and D612,646, IPR2017-00091 

and IPR2017-00094 respectively, (2017).

o Gave deposition on Supplemental Declaration, (2017).

• Nite Glow Industries, Inc., I Did It, Inc., and Marni Markell Hurwitz v. Central Garden & Pet 

Company and Four Paws Pet Company, d/b/a Four Paws Products, LTD.

o Prepared expert report on design patent practice regarding the filing of a request for 

expedited examination under 37 CFR 1.155 and its availability to design patent 

applications on certain flea and tick dispensers and cartridges identified in the report,

(2016).

o Gave deposition on expert report, (2017).

o Testified on expert report at trial, (2018).

• LKQ Corporation and Keystone Automotive Industries, Inc. v. GM Global Technology Operations 

LLC.

o Prepared Declaration in support of a Petition for Inter Partes and Post Grant Review of 

U.S. Design Patent Nos. D823,741, D797,625, D813,759, D855,508 and D864,065, (2019 

– 2020).

AWARDS

• Received outstanding rating at the end of fiscal year under performance appraisal plan both as an 

examiner, supervisor patent examiner and design patent practice specialist for 32 consecutive years.

• Received Department of Commerce Bronze Medal Award in March of 1983 for outstanding 

competence in the performance of official duties in the design patent field over a long period of 

time.

• Received Distinguished Career Award from the Patent and Trademark Office in December 2000, for 

sustained superior performance in the examination of design patent applications and in the leadership 

of art units.

• Received Norman P. Morgenstern Award in June of 2004 for recognition of the Supervisory Patent 

Examiner whose work exemplifies bold leadership and innovative activities that make a significant 

contribution to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 413-3 Filed: 09/03/21 Page 87 of 87 PageID #:10019