IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

ABC CORPORATION I, 

ABC CORPORATION II, 

Plaintiffs,

v. 

THE PARTNERSHIPS AND 

UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATIONS 

IDENTIFIED ON SCHEDULE A,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:20-cv-4806

Judge Thomas M. Durkin

Magistrate Judge Jeffrey Cole

MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT AND 

THIRD-PARTY RESPONDENTS’ MOTION FOR DAMAGES

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 704 Filed: 02/23/24 Page 1 of 19 PageID #:18130
TABLE OF CONTENTS

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT .................................................................................................... 1

RELEVANT FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY .............................................................. 2

LEGAL STANDARD..................................................................................................................... 5

ARGUMENT.................................................................................................................................. 6

I. The Affiliated Defendants Suffered No Damages Because They

Never Complied with the Prior PIs..................................................................................... 6

II. The Affiliated Defendants Have Not Made a Sufficient Showing of 

Damages Resulting from the Prior PIs................................................................................ 8

III. The Affiliated Defendants Are Not Entitled to Damages Above the 

Posted Bond Amount. ....................................................................................................... 10

A. That Defendant Gyroor-US Moved The Court To Increase The Bond 

Has No Bearing On Whether The Affiliated Defendants Can Recover 

Above The Bond Amount........................................................................................... 10

B. This Lawsuit Is Neither Frivolous Nor Motivated By Bad Faith. .............................. 11

C. Plaintiffs Did Not Abuse The System Or Obtain The Prior PIs In Bad Faith. ........... 13

CONCLUSION............................................................................................................................. 15

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 704 Filed: 02/23/24 Page 2 of 19 PageID #:18131
ii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page(s)

Cases

ABC Corp. I v. P’ship & Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule “A”,

51 F.4th 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2022) ..............................................................................................1, 4

ABC Corp. I v. P’ship & Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule “A”,

52 F.4th 934 (Fed. Cir. 2022) ....................................................................................................4

Coyne-Delany Co. v. Cap. Dev. Bd. of State of Ill.,

717 F.2d 385 ..............................................................................................................5, 6, 10, 11

Hangzhou Chic Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd. v. Partnership And 

Unincorporated Associations,

No. 24-1471 (Fed. Cir.)..............................................................................................................5

qad. inc. v. ALN Assocs., Inc.,

781 F. Supp. 561 (N.D. Ill. 1992)........................................................................................5, 13

Mead Johnson & Co. v. Abbott Labs.,

201 F.3d 883 (7th Cir. 2000) .................................................................................................5, 8

Mead Johnson & Co. v. Abbott Labs., 

209 F.3d 1032 (7th Cir. 2000) ...................................................................................................5

Republic Techs. (NA), LLC v. BBK Tobacco & Foods, LLP,

No. 16 C 3401, 2022 WL 874688 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 24, 2022).....................................................9

Shenzhen Yangjinmaoyi Co., Ltd. v. Hangzhou Chic Intelligent 

Technology Co., Ltd. et al.,

No. 5:22-cv-01144-JGB-SHK (C.D. Cal. June 1, 2023) .........................................................12

Sonix Tech. Co. v. Publications Int'l, Ltd.,

No. 13 C 2082, 2016 WL 1569410 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 19, 2016)..................................................12

Triumph v. Ward,

No. 11 C 7927, 2011 WL 6754044 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 22, 2011) ...........................................5, 8, 9

Statutes and Rules

35 U.S.C. § 285..............................................................................................................................12

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c).............................................................................................4

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 704 Filed: 02/23/24 Page 3 of 19 PageID #:18132
Plaintiffs Hangzhou Chic Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd. (“Chic”) and Unicorn Global, 

Inc. (“Unicorn”, and collectively with Chic, “Plaintiffs”) respectfully submit this opposition to 

Defendants Gyroor-US, Gyroor, Urbanmax, Fengchi-US, HGSM, Gaodeshang-US, Gyroshoes 

(individually and collectively, “Defendants”),

1

Jiangyou-US, and Shenzhen Yanjingmaoyi Co., 

Ltd.’s (“Yanjin-US”)

2

and together with Defendants and Jiangyou-US, the “Affiliated 

Defendants”) Motion for Damages (Dkt. 697, “Motion”).3

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

The Affiliated Defendants cannot recover “damages” for being “wrongfully enjoined” 

when they concededly engaged in sales in contempt of the very preliminary injunction orders they 

now summarily assert resulted in more than $2.7 million of so-called “lost profits”. Plaintiffs filed 

this action and sought a preliminary injunction in an effort to combat the Affiliated Defendants’ 

1 The Motion was made on behalf of Defendant Gyroor-US and alleged “Third Party Respondents” 

Gyroor, Urbanmax, Fengchi-US, HGSM, Gaodeshang-US, and Gyroshoes. Despite Defendants’ 

arguments to the contrary (see Dkt. 611 at 1, 6, 13), these interrelated parties remain defendants in 

this case. The Federal Circuit’s decision vacating the order that granted Plaintiff’s motion to amend 

Schedule A (Dkt. 227) extended only to the application of prior preliminary injunctions entered 

by this Court to the parties. See ABC Corp. I v. P’ship & Unincorporated Associations Identified 

on Schedule “A”, 51 F.4th 1365, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (Dkt. 590) (“For the foregoing reasons, we 

vacate for lack of Rule 65(a) notice the preliminary injunction entered by the district court on 

November 24, 2020, and the order entered by the district court on May 24, 2021, that granted 

ABC’s motion to amend Schedule A insofar as that order extended the 2020 Preliminary 

Injunction to new defendants.”).

2 Multiple defendants have appeared throughout the three-year history of this case, some of which 

have been dismissed at different points in this proceeding, including Jiangyou-US. Nevertheless, 

the affiliation of the parties named as defendants with the “Gyroor”-enterprise has not been (and 

cannot be) disputed. For ease of reference throughout this memorandum, Plaintiffs will 

collectively refer to the parties making this Motion—Gyroor-US, Gyroor, Urbanmax, FengchiUS, HGSM, Gaodeshang-US, Gyroshoes, Jiangyou-US, and Yanjin-US—as the “Affiliated 

Defendants.” 

3 Without prior approval of the Court, the Affiliated Defendants’ Motion spans over twenty 

pages—more than 5 pages over the 15-page limit set forth in L.R. 7.1. This is not the first time the 

Affiliated Defendants have disregarded the Court’s page limit. (See, e.g., Dkt. 663.) Accordingly, 

pursuant to L.R. 7.1, the Court should strike each page in excess of the 15-page limit.

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 704 Filed: 02/23/24 Page 4 of 19 PageID #:18133
2

scheme of selling infringing hoverboards on the online marketplace under fictitious names (in an 

attempt to conceal both their identities and the full scope and interworking of their operation).

Despite these efforts, the Affiliated Defendants ignored the restrictions of the injunctions and 

continued to engage in sales of enjoined products. The Affiliated Defendants are now seeking to 

recover “lost profits” for sales they never actually lost, wholly ignoring that they were previously 

held in contempt.

To obscure the prior contempt finding, the Affiliated Defendants offer a series of specious 

arguments—many of which the Affiliated Defendants have already brought before this Court in

piecemeal motions—that each fail to support the extraordinary relief they seek:

• The Affiliated Defendants cannot demonstrate an actual and quantifiable injury given, 

among other reasons, their undisputed violations of the preliminary injunctions. 

• The evidentiary deficiencies in establishing supposed “lost profits” prevents the Affiliated 

Defendants from meeting their burden to prove damages as a result of the preliminary 

injunctions. 

• The assertion that Plaintiffs pursued the preliminary injunctions in “bad faith” lacks 

merit—the Affiliated Defendants’ ignore that the preliminary injunctions were based on a 

good faith application of law and a finding of likelihood of success of the merits.

The Affiliated Defendants’ unsupported arguments that blatantly ignore (and contradict) 

the record in this case demonstrate that the request for damages should be denied and the bond 

posted in connection with the preliminary injunctions be returned to Plaintiffs. 

RELEVANT FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The Affiliated Defendants are inter-related Chinese companies and individuals that operate 

online e-commerce stores under multiple fictious aliases, selling hoverboards under the “Gyroor” 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 704 Filed: 02/23/24 Page 5 of 19 PageID #:18134
3

brand that infringe the Patents-in-Suit. (See Dkt. 101 ¶ 2.) To combat this infringement, Plaintiffs 

originally filed their complaint in August 2020 alleging infringement of the Patents-in-Suit4

against several online sellers of hoverboards. (Dkt. 1, 4.) On November 20, 2020, the day after 

filing their Third Amended Complaint (Dkt. 101), Plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary 

injunction to enjoin defendants—including Gyroor-US and Jiangyou-US—from further sale of 

infringing hoverboards. (Dkt. 105.) The preliminary injunction order was entered by this Court on 

November 24, 2020 (Dkt. 113) and modified on December 23, 2020 (Dkt. 147). 

After identifying other storefronts that were associated with the defendants named in the

original Schedule A and to “ensure that any entity against whom relief has been or foreseeably 

will be sought is listed as a defendant in the schedules of defendants,” Plaintiffs amended the list 

of defendants identified in Schedule A to add, inter alia, Gyroor, Urbanmax, Fengchi-US, HGSM, 

Gaodeshang-US and Gyroshoes as defendants. (Dkt. 227, 253.) Plaintiffs filed a second motion 

for a new preliminary injunction, which the Court subsequently entered on October 13, 2021 

(individually and collectively with the November 24, 2020 preliminary injunction order, the “Prior 

PIs”). (Dkt. 384, 456.) In connection with the relief granted by the Prior PIs, Plaintiffs had posted 

a bond in the amount of $94,000 on October 2, 2020,5and a second bond in the amount of $156,000 

on August 26, 2021.6

Even with an injunction in place, defendants Gyroor-US, Gyroor, Urbanmax, Fengchi-US, 

HGSM, Gaodeshang-US, Jiangyou-US, and Gyroshoes continued to sell infringing products 

4 The “Patents-in-Suit” are U.S. Design Patent No. D737,723; U.S. Design Patent No. D738,256; 

U.S. Design Patent No. D784,195; and U.S. Design Patent No. D785,112.

5

 See Dkt. 42, 50; Receipt No. 4624246936, entered October 2, 2020.

6

 See Dkt. No. 360; Receipt No. 4624261079, entered August 26, 2021.

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 704 Filed: 02/23/24 Page 6 of 19 PageID #:18135
4

through a succession of “Gyroor”-associated Amazon storefronts. (See Dkt. 327.) On October 6, 

2021, having failed to dispute or present any evidence to the contrary, the above-identified 

defendants were held in contempt for violating the preliminary injunction. (Dkt. 444.)

The Prior PIs remained in effect until October 28, 2022 when the Federal Circuit, in two 

separate opinions, vacated the Prior PIs and remanded to this Court for further proceedings. ABC 

Corp. I v. P’ship & Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule “A”, 51 F.4th 1365 (Fed. 

Cir. 2022); ABC Corp. I v. P’ship & Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule “A”, 52 

F.4th 934 (Fed. Cir. 2022). On November 9, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a renewed motion for a 

preliminary injunction against Defendants. (Dkt. 592.) On December 2, 2022, the Court denied 

Plaintiffs’ motion. (Dkt. 619, 626.) As the Prior PIs are no longer in effect and the posted bonds 

are no longer necessary to provide the security required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c), 

Plaintiffs moved for return of the bond, which remains pending before the Court. (See Dkt. 653–

656.)7

On December 23, 2022, Defendants filed a second motion for summary judgment on the 

grounds that the accused hoverboards did not infringe the Patents-in-Suit.8(Dkt. 628.) The Court 

granted Defendants’ motion on January 12, 2024 and dismissed Plaintiffs’ claims. (Dkt. 686.) That 

decision, however, is currently on appeal to the Federal Circuit. See Hangzhou Chic Intelligent 

Technology Co., Ltd. v. Partnership And Unincorporated Associations, No. 24-1471 (Fed. Cir.). 

7 Because of the overlapping arguments, this response serves as a further reply to Plaintiffs’ motion 

for return of bond (see Dkt. 654, 656), as mentioned in the Joint Status Report filed on January 26, 

2024 (Dkt. 688).

8 Defendant Gyroor-US’s first motion for summary judgment, based on only three facts, was 

denied on the ground that the “existence of one’s own patent does not constitute a defense to 

infringement of someone else’s patent.” (Dkt. 443 (quoting Bio-Tech. Gen. Corp. v. Genentech, 

Inc., 80 F.3d 1553, 1559 (Fed. Cir. 1996).)

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 704 Filed: 02/23/24 Page 7 of 19 PageID #:18136
5

LEGAL STANDARD

A defendant may recover damages against a bond only if they were wrongfully enjoined 

and if they suffered damages proximately caused by the injunction. See Triumph v. Ward, No. 11 

C 7927, 2011 WL 6754044, at *5 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 22, 2011). The burden is on the enjoined party to 

prove that damages extended directly from the restrained conduct. See Mead Johnson & Co. v. 

Abbott Labs., 201 F.3d 883, 888 (7th Cir. 2000); Triumph, 2011 WL 6754044, at *4.

The amount of bond that was in effect while the injunction lasted generally sets the ceiling 

for obtainable damages. Coyne-Delany Co. v. Cap. Dev. Bd. of State of Ill., 717 F.2d 385, 394; see 

also Mead Johnson & Co. v. Abbott Labs., 209 F.3d 1032, 1034 (7th Cir. 2000). The ceiling may 

be lifted, and the enjoined defendant can obtain damages over the injunction bond amount, only if 

the defendant can prove the plaintiff acted in bad faith in obtaining the injunction. Coyne–Delany,

717 F.2d at 393–94; see qad. inc. v. ALN Assocs., Inc., 781 F. Supp. 561, 562 (N.D. Ill. 1992)

(holding plaintiff acted in bad faith where it pursued an injunction and abused the legal process by

deceivingly persuading the court to protect against alleged copying of work in which it knowingly

had no copyright).

Nevertheless, this Court has discretion to deny damages under an injunction bond where 

“there is a good reason for not requiring the plaintiff to pay in the particular case.” Coyne-Delany, 

717 F.2d at 391–92. “A ‘good reason’ for not awarding damages on an injunction bond includes a

defendant’s failure to mitigate damages.” Id.

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 704 Filed: 02/23/24 Page 8 of 19 PageID #:18137
6

ARGUMENT

Defendants, Jiangyou-US, and Yanjin-US9 were not “wrongfully enjoined or restrained” 

as required to recover damages on the bond. The Prior PIs were based on a good faith application 

of law and a finding of likelihood of success of the merits—Plaintiffs had established, inter alia, 

that the Affiliated Defendants offer for sale and sell products that “an ordinary observer would be 

deceived into thinking...are the same as the products manufactured and sold by Plaintiffs that 

utilize the Patents-in-Suit.” (Dkt. 113 at 8–9; see also Dkt. 456 at 9.) In all events, the fact that the 

Prior PIs were later overturned by the Federal Circuit, nor the Court’s decision on summary 

judgment in favor of Defendants, do not render the Prior PIs “wrongful” or automatically entitle 

the Affiliated Defendants to damages.

I. The Affiliated Defendants Suffered No Damages Because They Never Complied with 

the Prior PIs.

Even to the extent that Defendants, Jiangyou-US, and Yanjin-US attempt to show they 

were “wrongfully enjoined,” “a prevailing defendant is entitled to damages on the injunction bond 

unless there is a good reason for not requiring the plaintiff to pay in the particular case.” CoyneDelany, 717 F.2d at 391 (emphasis added). The Affiliated Defendants turn a blind eye in their 

Motion to the fact that Defendants and Jiangyou-US were already found to be in violation of the 

November 24, 2020 preliminary injunction by actively participating in activities expressly 

restrained. Such conduct constitutes a “good reason” to not require Plaintiffs to pay. 

The Affiliated Defendants are part of a larger “Gyroor enterprise,” comprised of Gyrooraffiliated entities operating under multiple fictitious aliases that are all interrelated and sell 

infringing Gyroor-branded hoverboards that come from, and were manufactured by, a common 

9 Whether Yanjin-US is entitled to an award of damages and/or attorneys’ fees based on its 

inadvertent inclusion in the Prior PIs has already been addressed in briefing completed in July 

2022. (Dkt. 535, 536, 577, 580.)

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 704 Filed: 02/23/24 Page 9 of 19 PageID #:18138
7

source. A recurring tactic employed by the Affiliated Defendants throughout the enforcement of 

the Prior PIs was the creation of “pop up” storefronts on Amazon to briefly sell Gyroor-branded 

enjoined hoverboards for period of time just short enough to avoid any restraints, only to be 

replaced by other storefronts. (See Dkt. 327 (citing Declaration of Arthur Yuan, Dkt. 328, ¶ 40).)

In an effort to stop these activities, the Prior PIs expressly prohibited the enjoined parties

from “forming new entities or associations or utilizing any other device for the purposes of 

avoiding the prohibitions” against infringement (Dkt. 147 ¶ 1(c)) and “transferring or disposing of 

money or other Defendants’ assets” (Dkt. 147 ¶ 3). Despite these prohibitions, and as detailed in 

an earlier contempt ruling, Defendants and Jiangyou-US did not dispute that they were affiliated 

with other Amazon storefronts identified by Plaintiffs as selling infringing hoverboards and that 

they transferred assets from their Amazon accounts—conduct explicitly enjoined by the Prior PIs. 

(See Dkt. 444.)10

Indeed, Defendants and Jiangyou-US’s statement of sales submitted in response to this 

Court’s contempt order identified substantial sales of infringing hoverboards since the November 

24, 2021 preliminary injunction was entered. (See Dkt. 466, 467, 473, 476; see also Dkt. 531, 532, 

543, 581.) The fact that the Defendants and Jiangyou-US continued to sell infringing hoverboards 

under the guise of affiliated Amazon storefronts undercuts any potential claim of a legally 

cognizable harm compensable by monies set aside by the bonds and presents a “good reason” for 

not requiring Plaintiffs to pay in this case. 

10 This issue was fully briefed at Dkt. 327–330, 370, 382–383, and an Order was entered by this 

Court at Dkt. 444. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 704 Filed: 02/23/24 Page 10 of 19 PageID #:18139
8

II. The Affiliated Defendants Have Not Made a Sufficient Showing of Damages Resulting 

from the Prior PIs.

The defendant has the burden of proving the amount of his damages and that such damages 

extended directly from the restrained conduct. See Mead, 201 F.3d at 888. “Although proof of 

damages on an injunction bond need not...be to a mathematical certainty, a damages award cannot 

be speculative.” Triumph, 2011 WL 6754044, at *5 (quoting Latuszewski v. VALIC Fin. Advisors, 

Inc., 393 Fed. Appx. 962, 966–67 (3d Cir. 2010)).

The Affiliated Defendants decline—again—to offer any legally sufficient showing of 

damages. (See, e.g., Dkt. 536, 576, 655.) Even if the Court finds that the Affiliated Defendants are 

entitled to recover damages on the bonds, the Affiliated Defendants have not made (and cannot 

make) any showing that they were adversely affected by the Prior PIs. (See Mot. at 8–12.) The 

“huge loss of profit” allegedly suffered is pure speculation and supported by nothing more than 

self-serving statements and an unsupported “expert analysis.” (See id.; Dkt. 699.)

The “Expert Report of Stacy Kinsel” (“Kinsel Report”; Dkt. 699), upon which the 

Affiliated Defendants rely to support their damages claims, is riddled with evidentiary 

deficiencies. The Kinsel Report relies entirely upon self-reported sales information provided by 

the Affiliated Defendants (none of which has been provided to Plaintiffs or submitted in support 

of this Motion), without any reference to tax documents, financial statements, or any verifiable

information or data. (See Dkt. 699, Ex. B (listing all documents relied upon in providing the expert 

opinion).) Nor does the Kinsel Report take into account the hoverboard market or other factors 

that would affect the Affiliated Defendants’ purported “lost sales.” Instead, the Kinsel Report 

merely averages each Affiliated Defendant’s sales prior to the entry of the Prior PIs, and assumes 

that the total sales for each month during the period of the Prior PIs are equal to that average. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 704 Filed: 02/23/24 Page 11 of 19 PageID #:18140
9

The declarations of individuals made on behalf of each of the Affiliated Defendants—all 

virtually identical—fare no better and offer nothing more than conclusory assertions. (Dkt. 597-

2–10.) The respective declarant of each Affiliated Defendant vaguely “certif[ies] that the sales data 

and other documents provided to Stacy Kinsel for the damage calculation are true and correct,” 

yet fails to provide this underlying information upon which its claims purportedly rely. (See, e.g., 

Dkt. 597-2 ¶ 4.) Nor do the declarations make any statement claiming any “lost sales” other than 

that the Affiliated Defendants “barely sold any hoverboard after its Amazon account was released 

by Amazon.” (See, e.g., Dkt. 597-2 ¶ 5.) In any event, the Affiliated Defendants’ ultimate claims 

of damages are speculative. Whether they would have sold hoverboards within that timeframe, and 

how many units they could have sold, and at what price is mere conjecture. The Affiliated 

Defendants purported “lost profits” are calculated under the assumption that customer demand 

would exist, that they would be in competition for every sale of hoverboards, and that their sales 

per month would equate to their average sales prior to the entry of the Prior PIs. 

The Affiliated Defendants fail to meet their burden. The only “proof” of damages the 

Affiliated Defendants provide are self-serving assertions of lost profits supposedly attributable to 

the Prior PIs. Triumph, 2011 WL 6754044, at *5 (declining to award damages where claim based 

solely on unsupported assertions). Accordingly, awarding the Affiliated Defendants’ requested 

recovery on the bonds where there is a complete lack of substantiation is improper. See, e.g., 

Republic Techs. (NA), LLC v. BBK Tobacco & Foods, LLP, No. 16 C 3401, 2022 WL 874688, at 

*2 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 24, 2022) (declining to award damages where movant failed to present sufficient 

evidence).

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 704 Filed: 02/23/24 Page 12 of 19 PageID #:18141
10

III. The Affiliated Defendants Are Not Entitled to Damages Above the Posted Bond 

Amount.

The Affiliated Defendants’ remaining scattered arguments contending they are entitled

damages above the posted bond amount do not make up for the above-identified deficiencies. As 

the Affiliated Defendants recognize, even a wrongfully enjoined party cannot recover damages in 

excess of the bond amount absent a showing of bad faith in obtaining the injunction. (See Mot. at 

14.) This exception to the general rule that the bond normally sets the ceiling for obtainable 

damages does not apply here. 

A. That Defendant Gyroor-US Moved The Court To Increase The Bond Has No 

Bearing On Whether The Affiliated Defendants Can Recover Above The Bond 

Amount.

The Affiliated Defendants provide no support for their assertion that Defendant GyroorUS’s motion to increase the bond (Dkt. 576) automatically entitles the Affiliated Defendants to 

recover more than the posted bond. In fact, when appealing the Prior PIs, the Affiliated Defendants 

failed to request the Federal Circuit to increase the bond. See Coyne-Delany, 717 F.2d at 394 (“[A] 

defendant dissatisfied with the amount of bond set by the district court can, on appeal from the 

preliminary injunction, ask the court of appeals to increase the bond....”). The Affiliated 

Defendants cannot now have a second chance at a missed opportunity.

In any event, the damages claimed in their (now moot) motion were wholly speculative—

as they are here—and Defendants did not (and could not) satisfy their burden of showing that an 

increase of the bond was warranted or otherwise provide a basis for increasing a bond that the 

Court previously found sufficient. (See Dkt. 583.) Even if the Court granted defendant GyroorUS’s motion and increased the bond to the requested $628,295.60 (which was presumably 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 704 Filed: 02/23/24 Page 13 of 19 PageID #:18142
11

sufficient at that),11 the Affiliated Defendants are now seeking to recover over four times that 

amount. 

B. This Lawsuit Is Neither Frivolous Nor Motivated By Bad Faith.

The Motion’s unsupported contention that this action is baseless and motivated by bad faith 

is a complete mischaracterization of this proceeding. (See Mot. at 16.) Plaintiffs’ assertions of 

infringement of the Patents-in-Suit against competitors selling visually similar products cannot be 

characterized as frivolous and the Affiliated Defendants have not shown otherwise. In fact, the 

Affiliated Defendants have put forward no evidence—as they are required to do—establishing 

“frivolousness connoting not just a lack of merit but so great a lack as to suggest that the suit must 

have been brought to harass rather than to win.” Coyne-Delany, 717 F.2d at 390. Neither the 

inclusion of Yanjin-US in the Prior PIs (Plaintiffs actively engaged in the efforts to release the 

restraint when requested) nor the exclusion of two products from the renewed preliminary 

injunction request in November 2022 (infringement claims were maintained as to these products) 

demonstrate bad faith. 

The Affiliated Defendants’ attempt to frame Yanjin-US’s inadvertent inclusion in the Prior 

PIs as an “anticompetitive weapon against [the] Gyroor brand” simply fails. (Mot. at 16.) As 

previously briefed12 (see Dkt. 577 at 3–4), and as demonstrated by the Affiliated Defendants’ own 

11 In its motion to increase bond filed in July 2022, Defendant Gyroor-US claimed lost profits of 

$628,295.60 as a result of the preliminary injunction entered in November 2020. (Dkt. 576.) 

Defendant Gyroor-US now questionably claims lost profits of over $2.7 million when the 

injunction was vacated only three months after its motion to increase bond was filed. (Mot. at 8.)

Such inconsistencies only undermine the Affiliated Defendants’ damages claim. 

12 This issue was previously briefed at Dkt. 535, 536, 577, 580. For the Court’s convenience, 

Plaintiffs include part of the arguments supporting their position, herein. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 704 Filed: 02/23/24 Page 14 of 19 PageID #:18143
12

materials (see Ex. 5 (Dkt. 697-14); Ex. 6 (Dkt. 697-15)), Plaintiffs at all times sought to efficiently 

and cooperatively address Yanjin-US’s inadvertent inclusion in the Prior PIs. 

The entire premise of the Affiliated Defendants’ argument is that Yanjin-US has no 

relationship to other defendants or the products at issue in this case thereby rendering its inclusion 

in the Prior PIs as “baseless” and seemingly motivated by “bad faith.” (See Mot. at 16–17.) 

Through the Prior PIs, however, Plaintiffs sought to enjoin the Affiliated Defendants and related 

storefronts on online platforms from selling infringing Gyroor-branded products. Indeed, YanjinUS does not dispute that it sells Gyroor-branded products, namely “Gyroor-branded Electric Roller 

Skate[s].” (See Mot. at 16–17.) Further, Yanjin-US specifically alleged in its antitrust complaint 

filed against Plaintiffs in the United States District Court for the Central District of California that 

Yanjin-US is a distributor on Amazon of Gyroor products—the very same brand of products at 

issue in the instant suit.

13 It is therefore neither unexpected nor unreasonable that Yanjin-US would 

have initially been included in the Prior PIs, even if it were ultimately later determined that it did 

not sell the specific infringing Gyroor-branded products at issue in this action. See Sonix Tech. Co. 

v. Publications Int'l, Ltd., No. 13 C 2082, 2016 WL 1569410, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 19, 2016)

(denying motion for attorney’s fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285 where plaintiff’s conduct was not 

unreasonable, and claims were “not so merit-less as to ‘stand out’ from the norm”).

In addition, Plaintiffs’ renewed motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary 

injunction made after the Federal Circuit vacated the Prior PIs was not “frivolous.” (See Mot. at 

18.) The Federal Circuit merely took issue with the detail provided by the Court to establish a 

likelihood of success on the merits. Thus, in light of the roadmap provided by the Federal Circuit, 

13 Shenzhen Yangjinmaoyi Co., Ltd. v. Hangzhou Chic Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd. et al., No. 

5:22-cv-01144-JGB-SHK (C.D. Cal. June 1, 2023) (Dkt. 58) (granting motion to dismiss because 

Chic and Unicorn’s filing of infringement claims against Yanjin-US was not “anti-competitive”).

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 704 Filed: 02/23/24 Page 15 of 19 PageID #:18144
13

Plaintiffs’ included a patent-by-patent and product-by-product analysis that accounted for all 

relevant prior art and demonstrated that two of the Patents-in-Suit are infringed by three accused 

product groups manufactured and/or sold by the Affiliated Defendants. (See Dkt. 593, 594.) 

Contrary to the Affiliated Defendants’ assertion (see Mot. at 18), that Plaintiffs did not include 

two accused products in its renewed motion that were originally subject to the Prior PIs, does not 

suggest that Plaintiffs determined there was no likelihood of success on the infringement claims 

against those products. Instead, on evaluation and understanding that a determination on a 

preliminary injunction motion is based on multiple factors, not just the likelihood of success, 

Plaintiffs strategically chose to focus only on certain product groups. 

C. Plaintiffs Did Not Abuse The System Or Obtain The Prior PIs In Bad Faith.

The sole case the Affiliated Defendants rely upon to support their assertion of Plaintiffs’ 

bad faith in obtaining the Prior PIs is inapposite—there, the plaintiff deliberately misused its 

copyright and deceived the court by pursuing an injunction to enjoin the defendant from copying

a work in which plaintiff knowingly had no copyright. See qad., 781 F. Supp. 561 (cited in Mot.

at 14, 18). In contrast, here, Plaintiffs asserted infringement of valid patents, which confer the right

to exclude others, including the Affiliated Defendants and other identified third-party sellers, from

making selling, offering for sale, and importing competitive products embodying the claimed

designs. The alleged lack of notice, inadvertent inclusion of additional parties, and inclusion of 

products that are visually similar to the design claimed in the Patents-in-Suit is not the type of “bad 

faith” conduct contemplated by the Court as supporting an award of damages over the amount of 

the bond. 

More specifically, the alleged “fraudulent” addition of new parties does not paint the whole 

picture. As discussed above, the Affiliated Defendants ignored the restrictions of the Prior PIs and, 

using the anonymity associated with online sales platforms to their own advantage, engaged in a 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 704 Filed: 02/23/24 Page 16 of 19 PageID #:18145
14

recurring scheme of selling enjoined products through other related “pop-up” storefronts. (See, 

e.g., Dkt. 327, 382, 444.) As a result, Plaintiffs’ sought to enjoin other third-party sellers identified 

as having distributed and sold infringing Gyroor-branded products. Such restraints were necessary 

to prevent any irreparable harm to Plaintiffs. In any event, as addressed above, the inclusion of 

Yanjin-US was inadvertent and Plaintiffs actively engaged in the efforts to remove any restraint 

against it. Such conduct is not consistent with the Affiliated Defendants’ allegations of “bad faith.” 

Moreover, new products were not “fraudulently added.” (Mot. at 20.) Plaintiffs’ papers in 

support of the Prior PIs clearly set forth a basis for enjoining the G11 Model.14 (See Dkt. 579.) The 

G11 Model (identified by its Amazon listing ID: ASIN B08RYMXRWM) was, in fact, included 

in Plaintiffs’ “Store and Website” list (see Dkt. 383 at ¶ 5; see also e.g., Dkt. 383-3 at 44) that this 

Court referenced as “showing the allegedly infringing products being sold on the websites or 

electronic storefronts in question, thus providing a sufficient factual basis to freeze funds 

associated with those websites and electronic storefronts.” (Dkt. 558 at 1–2.) Thus, the G11 Model 

was identified as an infringing product in Plaintiffs’ moving papers and the Affiliated Defendants 

cannot plausibly challenge that the inclusion of the G11 Model in the Prior PIs was made in good 

faith. 

14 This issue was previously briefed at Dkt. 560, 567, 579. For the Court’s convenience, Plaintiffs 

include part of the arguments supporting their position, herein.

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 704 Filed: 02/23/24 Page 17 of 19 PageID #:18146
15

CONCLUSION

In view of the foregoing, the Court should deny Defendants’ Motion and Plaintiffs’ Motion 

for Return of Bond (Dkt. 653) should be granted. 

Dated: February 23, 2024 Respectfully submitted,

TARTER KRINSKY & DROGIN LLP

By: /s/ Richard J.L. Lomuscio

HONIGMAN LLP

Robert J. Palmersheim

Timothy G. Parilla

155 N. Wacker Drive

Suite 3100

Chicago, IL 60606

Tel.: (312) 319-1791

E-mail: rjp@honigman.com

E-mail: tgp@honigman.com

Richard J.L. Lomuscio

Mark Berkowitz

Chandler E. Sturm (admitted pro hac vice)

1350 Broadway

New York, NY 10018

Tel.: (212) 216-8000

Fax: (212) 216-8001

E-mail: rlomuscio@tarterkrinsky.com

E-mail: mberkowitz@tarterkrinsky.com

E-mail: csturm@tarterkrinsky.com

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 704 Filed: 02/23/24 Page 18 of 19 PageID #:18147
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on February 23, 2024, I electronically filed the above document 

with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system, and service was perfected on all counsel of 

record and interested parties through this system, which will deliver a true and correct copy of the 

foregoing documents via CM/ECF.

By: /s/ Richard J.L. Lomuscio

Richard J.L. Lomuscio

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 704 Filed: 02/23/24 Page 19 of 19 PageID #:18148