UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION 

ABC Corporation I et al, 

 Plaintiff,

v. 

THE PARTNERSHIPS and 

UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATIONS 

IDENTIFIED ON SCHEDULE “A”, 

 Defendants.

CASE NO. 1:20-cv-04806 

Judge: Honorable Thomas M. Durkin

DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ 

MOTION FOR AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 370 Filed: 08/17/21 Page 1 of 7 PageID #:8345
1 

Without waiving their Rule 12(b) defenses, Defendants Gyroor-US, Fengchi-US, Urbanmax, 

Gaodeshang-US, Jiangyou-US, Gyroshoes, Gyroor, and HGSM, through counsel, submit their responses to 

Plaintiffs’ motion for an order to show cause [Dkt. No. 326]. 

Introduction 

Only Gyroor-US was a named Defendant when the Preliminary Injunction Orders were 

entered. Fengchi-US, Urbanmax, Gaodeshang-US, Jiangyou-US, Gyroshoes, Gyroor, and HGSM 

(“the Seven Defendants”) were nonparties when the Preliminary Injunction Orders were entered. 

Despite the fact that all accused products sold by the eight (8) defendants are based on valid U.S. 

Design Patents — US D808,856 Patent, US D808,857 Patent, US D891,297 Patent, Plaintiffs seek an 

order to show cause against all eight (8) defendants for their violation of the preliminary injunction orders. 

An order to show cause is unwarranted in this action because I. the Seven Defendants cannot 

violate the preliminary injunction orders because they were not bound by preliminary injunction orders; 

and II. Gyroor-US complied with the preliminary injunction orders. 

Background 

On November 20, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary injunction. [Dkt. No. 105]. 

On November 24, 2020, a preliminary injunction hearing was held. [Dkt. No. 112]. 

On November 24, 2020, a preliminary injunction order was entered. [Dkt. No. 113]. 

On December 24, 2020, a modified preliminary injunction order was entered. [Dkt. No. 147]. 

Gyroor-US never received notice of the preliminary injunction. [Dkt. No. 354-1, ¶8]. 

Service of process was not effectuated on Defendant until January 29, 2021. [Dkt. No. 354-1, ¶6-7]. 

The Seven Defendants were nonparties to this action until they were added as defendants on May 

24, 2021. [Dkt. No. 253]. 

Timeline 

Date: Event: 

07/10/2020 Initial Filing 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 370 Filed: 08/17/21 Page 2 of 7 PageID #:8346
2 

11/20/2020 Motion for Preliminary Injunction Filed [Dkt. No. 105] 

11/24/2020 Hearing for Preliminary Injunction held on November 24, 2020 

11/24/2020 Preliminary Injunction Order entered [Dkt. No. 113] 

12/23/2020 Modified Preliminary Injunction Order entered [Dkt. No. 147] 

12/29/2020 Initial Email Service of Process on Gryoor-US (without Summons) See Ex. 3 

01/29/2021 Second Email Service of Process on Gryoor-US (with Summons) See Ex. 4 

05/24/2021 Seven Defendants were added to Schedule “A” [Dkt. No. 253]

06/25/2021 Email Service of Process on Seven Defendants [Dkt. No. 310]

Arguments 

An order to show cause is unwarranted because I. the Seven Defendants cannot violate the 

preliminary injunction orders because they were not bound by preliminary injunction orders; and 

II. Gyroor-US complied with the preliminary injunction orders. 

I. The Seven Defendants Cannot Violate the Preliminary Injunction Orders Because They 

Were Not Bound by the Preliminary Injunction Orders 

“Rule 65(d) requires that the injunction itself contain enough information to render its scope 

clear.” Auto Driveaway Franchise Sys., LLC v. Auto Driveaway Richmond, LLC, 928 F.3d 670, 676 (7th 

Cir. 2019) (citing Bethune Plaza, Inc. v. Lumpkin, 863 F.2d 525, 527 (7th Cir. 1988)). 

Rule 65(d)(1) requires that “every order granting an injunction ... must: (A) state the reasons why it 

issued; (B) state its terms specifically; and (C) describe in reasonable detail—and not by referring to the 

complaint or other document—the act or acts restrained or required.” 

“Rule 65(d)(2)(C) authorizes courts to enforce injunctions against third parties who have actual 

notice of the injunction, and who are in active concert or participation with the parties who are bound by 

the injunction.” Blockowicz v. Williams, 630 F.3d 563, 566, (7th Cir, 2010) (citing Rule 65(d)(2)(C)). 

“Supreme Court law as interpreted by the Seventh Circuit forbids pre-determining the question of 

whether an injunction binds a third party under Rule 65(d)(2) without first serving the third party and 

giving it an opportunity to be heard.” Pow! Entm’t, LLC v. Individuals, Corps., Limited Liability Companies, 

Partnerships, and Unincorporated Ass’ns Identified on Schedule A, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 154861, at*5-6 

(N.D. Ill. Aug. 26, 2020); (citing Lake Shore Asset Mgmt. Ltd. v. Commodity Futures Trading Com’n., 511 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 370 Filed: 08/17/21 Page 3 of 7 PageID #:8347
3 

F.3d 762, 766-67 (7th Cir. 2007); United States v. Kirschenbaum, 156 F.3d 784, 794-96 (7th Cir. 1998) (both 

applying Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100, 110-11, (1969))). 

“Whether a particular person or firm is among the parties’ officers, agents, servants, employees, and 

attorneys; or other persons in active concert or participation with them (Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d)(2)(B) and (C)) 

is a decision that may be made only after the person in question is given notice and an opportunity to be 

heard.” See Lake Shore Asset Mgmt. v. CFTC, 511 F.3d 762, 766-67 (7th Cir, 2007); see also Nat'l Spiritual 

Assembly of the Bahá'ís of the United States Under the Hereditary Guardianship, Inc. v. Nat'l Spiritual 

Assembly of the Bahá'ís of the United States, Inc., 628 F.3d 837, 853 (7th Cir, 2010) (a court establishes 

jurisdiction over a nonparty and offers the nonparty this opportunity to be heard before a nonparty may 

properly be held in contempt for violating an injunction). 

First, it is undisputed that the preliminary injunctions bind “Defendants who operate e-commerce 

stores under one or more seller aliases identified in the attached Schedule A, Schedule B, and Schedule C.” 

[Preliminary Injunction Orders, Dkt. No. 113, p. 1; Dkt No. 147, p. 1]. 

Because the Seven Defendants were nonparties when the preliminary injunctions were entered. they 

are not bound by the preliminary injunction orders. 

Second, although Plaintiffs allege that the Seven Defendants “acting in active concert or participation 

with Gyroor-US,” [Dkt. No. p. 3], Plaintiffs failed to serve or to notice the Seven Defendants. 

Because the Seventh Circuit forbids pre-determining the question of whether an injunction binds a 

third party under Rule 65(d)(2), the Seven Defendants are not bound by the preliminary injunction until 

such a determination is made against the Seven Defendants. 

Third, neither the Preliminary Injunction Orders nor Schedule “A” targets the “Gyroor” brand. 

The Preliminary Injunction Orders applies to specific “products not authorized by Plaintiffs and that 

include any reproduction, copy or colorable imitation of the design claimed in the Patents-in-Suit” 

[Preliminary Injunction Orders, Dkt. No. 113, p. 9; Dkt No. 147, p. 9]. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 370 Filed: 08/17/21 Page 4 of 7 PageID #:8348
4 

Gyroor-US’ accused products is identified as ASIN# B07PHFP8GB [Dkt. No. 227-2, p. 3 of 4]. 

Defendants that sell different products are not bound by the Preliminary Injunction Orders. For example, 

Fengchi-US sells a different product with ASIN# B08NT551P4, which is based on U.S. Design Patent — 

D891,297 Patent. The ASIN# B08NT551P4 does not “include any reproduction, copy or colorable imitation 

of the design claimed in the Patents-in-Suit.” See Fengchi-US’ Motion to Dismiss Dkt. No. 366]. 

Therefore, Defendants like Fengchi-US are not bound by the Preliminary Injunction Orders. 

Because the Seven Defendants were not bound by the Preliminary Injunction orders, an order to 

show cause is unwarranted. 

II. Gyroor-US Complied with the Preliminary Injunction Orders and Plaintiffs’ Allegations 

Are Inaccurate 

Gyroor-US has complied with the Court's Preliminary Injunction Orders. It has ceased offering for 

sale, selling, and importing any products not authorized by Plaintiffs and that include any reproduction, 

copy or colorable imitation of the design claimed in the Patents-in-Suit. See Aff. of Xie, ¶3-4, attached 

hereto as Ex. 1. It has never aided, abetted, contributed to, or otherwise assisted anyone in infringing upon 

the Patents-in-Suit. Id. 

Gyroor-US addresses Plaintiffs’ allegations in their motion for an order to show cause as follows: 

First, Plaintiffs allege that “if a store is selling the same products, but is not affiliated with or 

working in concert with the brand owner associated with the ASIN, Amazon would not approve the 

creation of a new ASIN.” [Dkt. No. 327, p. 4]. This is inaccurate. 

Brand owner’s approval is not required to sell and Gyroor-US did not approve any tag-along 

merchants. Aff. of Xie, Ex. 1, ¶ 5-6. 

Second, Plaintiffs allege that “pop-up Gyroor Stores selling enjoined products.” [Dkt. No. 327, p. 

5]. Same as above, Gyroor-US did not approve the tag-along merchants. Gyroor-US has no control over 

the tag-along sellers, and it is not affiliated, in active concert of participation with the sellers identified by 

Plaintiffs. Aff. of Xie, Ex. 1, ¶ 7. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 370 Filed: 08/17/21 Page 5 of 7 PageID #:8349
5 

Third, Plaintiffs allege “direct infringement” by www.gyroorboard.com. [Dkt. No. 327, p. 6]. 

Gyroor-US does not own or operate this website. Aff. of Xie, Ex. 1, ¶ 8. 

Forth, Plaintiffs allege Gyroor-US has transferred $144,319.51 [Dkt. No. 327, p. 6]. Gyroor-US 

never transferred any restrained assets. Aff. of Xie, Ex. 1, ¶ 9. The assets were deducted by Amazon.com to 

pay warehouse storage costs and refund for returned products. Id. ¶ 10. Gyroor-US has not control over 

deductions by Amazon.com. Id. ¶ 11. 

 Therefore, Gyroor-US did not violate the Court’s preliminary injunction order. 

Conclusion 

 For the foregoing reasons, Defendants respectfully request that the Court deny Plaintiffs’ 

motion for order to show cause. 

Date: 08/17/2021 /s/ Tianyu Ju 

Tianyu Ju, Esq. 

GLACIER LAW PLLC 

200 E. Randolph Dr., Ste. 5100 

Chicago, IL 60601 

Attorney for Defendant 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 370 Filed: 08/17/21 Page 6 of 7 PageID #:8350
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this August 17, 2021, I electronically filed the foregoing file 

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. 

Date: 08/17/2021 /s/ Tianyu Ju 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 370 Filed: 08/17/21 Page 7 of 7 PageID #:8351