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 

DEFENDANT AND THIRD-PARTY RESPONDENTS’ REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS’ 

OPPOSITION TO DEFENANT AND THIRD-PARTY RESPONDENTS’ MOTION FOR 

DAMAGES 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 705 Filed: 03/01/24 Page 1 of 16 PageID #:18149
ii 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND .................................... 1

II. LEGAL STANDARD ....................................................................................... 2

III. ARGUMENT ..................................................................................................... 2

A. PLAINTIFFS HAVE FAILED TO SHOW ANY GOOD REASON NOT TO AWARD 

DEFENDANT AND THIRD-PARTY RESPONDENTS DAMAGES. ........................... 3

B. DEFENDANT AND THIRD-PARTY RESPONDENTS HAVE SUFFICIENTLY 

PROVED THE AMOUNTS OF THEIR DAMAGES. ................................................ 5

C. DEFENDANT AND THIRD-PARTY RESPONDENTS ARE ENTITLED TO DAMAGE 

ABOVE THE POSTED BOND AMOUNT. .............................................................. 6

1. Plaintiffs initiated this case in bad faith with the sole purpose of eliminating 

Gyroor brand from hoverboard industry ............................................................. 6

2. Plaintiffs maintained this case in bad faith by intentionally multiplying and 

prolonging the proceedings .................................................................................... 8

IV. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................... 11

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 705 Filed: 03/01/24 Page 2 of 16 PageID #:18150
iii 

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 

Case Page 

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

52 F.4th 934, 944 (Fed. Cir. 2022) ......................................................................................9

Adolph Coors Co. v. A & S Wholesalers, Inc., 

561 F.2d 807, 814 (10th Cir.1977) ......................................................................................2

Atomic Oil Co. v. Bardahl Oil Co., 

419 F.2d 1097, 1100–03 (10th Cir.1969) ............................................................................2 

Coyne–Delany Co., Inc. v. Capital Dev. Bd. of State of Illinois, 

717 F.2d 385, 391 (7th Cir.1983) ....................................................................................3, 5 

Eon-Net LP v. Flagstar Bancorp, 

653 F.3d 1314, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2011)..................................................................................9 

ESIP Series 1, LLC v. doTerra Int’l, LLC, 

 No. 2:15-CV-00779-RJS, 2022 WL 656777, at *10 (D. Utah Mar. 4, 2022), 

reconsideration denied, No. 2:15-CV-00779-RJS, 2022 WL 17903397 (D. Utah 

Dec. 23, 2022) ......................................................................................................................8 

Gabriel Techs. Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., 

560 F. App’x 966, 972 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ..............................................................................8 

Global Naps, Inc. v. Verizon New England, Inc., 

489 F.3d 13, 22 (1st Cir.2007) .............................................................................................5 

Hangzhou Chic Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd. v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated 

Associations Identified on Schedule “A”, 

 Case No. 20-cv-05905 (E.D. Ill) ..........................................................................................8 

Hangzhou Chic Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd. v. Swagway LLC, 

Case No. 16-cv-04804-HSG (N.D. Cal. 2016) ....................................................................7 

Highmark, Inc. v. Allcare Health Mgmt. Sys., Inc., 

 687 F.3d 1300, 1309 (Fed. Cir. 2012), vacated and remanded, 572 U.S. 559, 134 

S. Ct. 1744, 188 L. Ed. 2d 829 (2014) .................................................................................8 

Latuszewski v. VALIC Fin. Advisors, Inc., 

393 Fed. Appx. 962, 966–67 (3d Cir.2010) .........................................................................5 

Middlewest Motor Freight Bureau v. United States, 

 433 F.2d 212, 241 n. 4, 243 (8th Cir.1970) .........................................................................2

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 705 Filed: 03/01/24 Page 3 of 16 PageID #:18151
iv 

Monster Energy Co. v. Wensheng, 

136 F. Supp. 3d 897, 911 (N.D. Ill. 2015) ...........................................................................2 

Nintendo of Am., Inc. v. Lewis Galoob Toys, Inc., 

16 F.3d 1032, 1036, n. 4 (9th Cir.1994) ..............................................................................5 

Nokia Corp. v. InterDigital, Inc., 

645 F.3d 553, 559 (2d Cir.2011)..........................................................................................5 

SFA Sys., LLC v. Newegg Inc., 

793 F.3d 1344, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2015)..................................................................................8 

Slidell, Inc. v. Millennium Inorganic Chems., Inc., 

460 F.3d 1047, 1059 (8th Cir.2006) ....................................................................................5 

Triumph v. Ward, 

No. 11 C 7927, 2011 WL 6754044, at *4 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 22, 2011) ...................................5 

Wabash Publ’g Co. v. Flanagan, 

89 C 1923, 1990 WL 19977, at *1 (N.D.Ill. Feb.27, 1990) ...............................................10 

Rules 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(c) ........................................................................................................................2 

Others 

7 Moore’s Federal Practice, supra, ¶ 6.10[2], at p. 65–100; Comment, The Triggering of 

Liability on Injunction Bonds, 52 N.C.L.Rev. 1252, 1257–63 (1974) ............................................2 

11A Wright & Miller, Fed. Prac. and Proc. § 2973 (2d ed. 2010) ...................................................5 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 705 Filed: 03/01/24 Page 4 of 16 PageID #:18152
1 

Defendant Gyroor-US (“Defendant” or “Gyroor-US”) and Third-Party Respondents 

Gyroor, Urbanmax, GaodeshangUS, Fengchi-US, Gyroshoes, HGSM, Shenzhen Yanjingmaoyi 

Co., Ltd. (“Yanjin-US”) and Jiangyou-US 1 (collectively, “Third-Party Respondents”) hereby 

submit this reply to Plaintiffs Hangzhou Chic Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd. (“Chic”) and 

Unicorn Global, Inc.’s (“Unicorn”, and collectively with “Chic”, “Plaintiffs”) Opposition to 

Defendant and Third-Party Respondents’ Motion for Damages. [Dkt. 704]. 

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 

On August 17, 2020, Plaintiffs filed complaint against Defendant alleging that Defendant’s 

accused products infringe on their U.S. Design Patent Nos. D737,723 (“the ’D723 patent”), 

D738,256 (“the ’D256 patent”), D785,112 (“the ’D112 patent”), and D784,195 (“the ’D195 

patent”) (collectively, “Patents-in-Suit”). 

On November 20, 2020, Plaintiffs filed their first motion for preliminary injunction against 

Defendant, which was later granted by the Court. [Dkt. 105, 113]. 

On August 24, 2021, Plaintiffs filed a second motion for preliminary injunction against 

Third-Party Respondents. [Dkt. 384]. The Court granted Plaintiffs’ second preliminary injunction 

on October 6, 2021. [Dkt. 447, 456]. 

On October 28, 2022, the Federal Circuit issued an opinion and vacated the two preliminary 

injunction orders issued by this Court. [Dkt. 587-590]. 

On November 9, 2022, Plaintiffs filed their renewed motion for temporary restraining order 

and preliminary injunction. [Dkt. 592]. This motion was denied by this Court on December 2, 

2022. [Dkt. 619]. 

1

 Jiangyou-US was a former wrongfully-enjoined defendant who was dismissed from this case for lack of personal 

jurisdiction on June 21, 2022. [Dkt. 561]. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 705 Filed: 03/01/24 Page 5 of 16 PageID #:18153
2 

On January 12, 2024, Defendant and Third-Party Respondents’ motion for summary 

judgment of non-infringement was granted by the Court, and all Plaintiffs’ claims are dismissed. 

[Dkt. 686]. 

On February 8, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to challenge Court’s order granting 

Defendant and Third-Party Respondents’ motion for summary judgment of non-infringement. 

[Dkt.691]. 

II. LEGAL STANDARD 

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c), a court may issue a preliminary injunction 

“only if the movant gives security in an amount that the court considers proper to pay the costs 

and damages sustained by any party found to have been wrongfully enjoined or restrained.” Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 65(c). “The purpose of requiring security prior to issuance of an injunction or a 

temporary restraining order is to guarantee payment of costs and damages incurred by a party who 

is wrongfully enjoined or restrained.” Monster Energy Co. v. Wensheng, 136 F. Supp. 3d 897, 911 

(N.D. Ill. 2015). 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. See, e.g., Atomic Oil Co. 

v. Bardahl Oil Co., 419 F.2d 1097, 1100–03 (10th Cir.1969); Middlewest Motor Freight Bureau 

v. United States, 433 F.2d 212, 241 n. 4, 243 (8th Cir.1970); Adolph Coors Co. v. A & S 

Wholesalers, Inc., 561 F.2d 807, 814 (10th Cir.1977); 7 Moore’s Federal Practice, supra, ¶ 6.10[2], 

at p. 65–100; Comment, The Triggering of Liability on Injunction Bonds, 52 N.C.L.Rev. 1252, 

1257–63 (1974). 

III. ARGUMENT 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 705 Filed: 03/01/24 Page 6 of 16 PageID #:18154
3 

A. Plaintiffs Have Failed To Show Any Good Reason Not To Award Defendant And ThirdParty Respondents Damages. 

In the Seventh Circuit, “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.” 

Coyne–Delany Co., Inc. v. Capital Dev. Bd. of State of Illinois, 717 F.2d 385, 391 (7th Cir.1983). 

When rules prescribe a course of action as the norm but allow the district court to deviate from it, 

the court’s discretion is more limited than it would be if the rules were nondirective. Id. at 392. 

The judge must have a good reason for departing from such a principle in a particular case. Id. It 

is not a sufficient reason for denying costs or damages on an injunction bond that the suit had as 

in this case been brought in good faith. Id. The award of damages on the bond is not punitive but 

compensatory. Id. 

Here, Plaintiffs have failed to show any good reason not to award Defendant and ThirdParry Respondents damages as whether Defendant and Third-Parry Respondents had complied 

with the prior preliminary injunctions is not one of the good reasons that allows the district court 

to deviate from the norm. Plaintiffs also have not cited any case law to support that the district 

court determines to not award damages to a prevailing defendant because of the violation of 

preliminary injunction order. 

In deciding whether to withhold injunction damages, not only is the district court to be 

guided by the implicit presumption in Rule 65(c) in favor of awarding them, but the ingredients of 

a proper decision are objective factors—such as the resources of the parties, the defendant’s efforts 

or lack thereof to mitigate his damages, and the outcome of the underlying suit—accessible to the 

judgment of a reviewing court. Id. A good reason for not awarding such damages would be that 

the defendant had failed to mitigate damages. Id. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 705 Filed: 03/01/24 Page 7 of 16 PageID #:18155
4 

Here, there is no “good reason” for the Court to deny Defendant and Third-Party 

Respondents to recover damages. First of all, this lawsuit has already decided in favor of Defendant 

and Third-Party Respondents since the Court granted Defendant and Third-Party Respondents’ 

motion for summary judgment of non-infringement and all Plaintiffs’ claims were dismissed. [Dkt. 

686]. In addition, Defendant and Third-Party Respondents were lack of any abilities during their 

injunction periods to mitigate any damages as their Amazon accounts had been restrained and 

preliminary injunction orders were entered against them, so they did not have any other channels 

to sell or dispose the products. Also, compared with Plaintiffs, who are major players in the 

hoverboard market, Defendant and Third-Party Respondents do not hold the same resources as 

Plaintiffs do. 

Furthermore, as illustrated by Defendant and Third-Party Respondents in their replies, 

Plaintiffs’ alleged violation of the preliminary injunction order was unfounded. This is because 

Third-Party Respondents were non-parties and did not receive proper notice of the preliminary 

injunction orders at the time they were issued, which was further confirmed by the Federal Circuit. 

[Dkt. 370, 590]. It is undisputed that all of Defendant and Third-Party Respondents’ Amazon stores 

were prohibited from selling any products during the injunction period. Furthermore, there is no 

dispute that all of Defendant and Third-Party Respondents were wrongfully enjoined. On 

November 15, 2022, the Court mooted its previous find that Defendants and Third-Party 

Respondents were in contempt of the preliminary injunction. [Dkt. 603]. There are no records or 

evidence to suggest that Defendant or Third-Party Respondents ever violated the preliminary 

injunction orders. On the contrary, the records and evidence demonstrate that Defendant and ThirdParty Respondents substantially complied with the preliminary injunction orders and, as a result, 

suffered substantial losses during the injunction period. [Dkt. 543, 697]. On the other side, even if 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 705 Filed: 03/01/24 Page 8 of 16 PageID #:18156
5 

some non-parties sold the accused products before receiving the proper notice, the revenues 

generated from these sales are significantly less than the damages suffered by Defendant and 

Third-Party Respondents. 

Thus, Defendant and Third-Party Respondents have suffered substantial losses because of 

the wrongfully enjoyed by Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs fail to show any good cause to for the Court to 

deny Defendant and Third-Party Respondents request for damages. 

B. Defendant And Third-Party Respondents Have Sufficiently Proved The Amounts Of Their 

Damages. 

“Although proof of damages on an injunction bond need not ... be to a mathematical 

certainty, a damages award cannot be speculative.” Latuszewski v. VALIC Fin. Advisors, Inc., 393 

Fed. Appx. 962, 966–67 (3d Cir.2010) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted); see also 

11A Wright & Miller, Fed. Prac. and Proc. § 2973 (2d ed. 2010) (“A wrongfully enjoined 

defendant must establish what damages were proximately caused by the erroneously issued 

injunction in order to recover and the alleged damages cannot be speculative.”). 

Here, Defendant and Third-Party Respondents have satisfied their burden of proving that 

they are entitled to damages. First, Defendant and Third-Party Respondents were wrongfully 

restrained. In light of the Federal Circuit vacating the preliminary injunction orders and the Court’s 

order granting Defendant and Third-Party Respondents’ motion for summary judgment, there can 

be no question that Defendant and Third-Party Respondents are the “prevailing party”. Triumph v. 

Ward, No. 11 C 7927, 2011 WL 6754044, at *4 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 22, 2011) (Citing Coyne–Delany, 

717 F.2d at 391); see also Nokia Corp. v. InterDigital, Inc., 645 F.3d 553, 559 (2d Cir.2011) (citing 

cases); Global Naps, Inc. v. Verizon New England, Inc., 489 F.3d 13, 22 (1st Cir.2007); Nintendo 

of Am., Inc. v. Lewis Galoob Toys, Inc., 16 F.3d 1032, 1036, n. 4 (9th Cir.1994); Slidell, Inc. v. 

Millennium Inorganic Chems., Inc., 460 F.3d 1047, 1059 (8th Cir.2006). 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 705 Filed: 03/01/24 Page 9 of 16 PageID #:18157
6 

Second, Defendant and Third-Party Respondents have met their burden of proving that the 

losses they suffered as a result of being wrongfully restrained. Due to the wrongfully-issued 

preliminary injunction orders, Defendant and Third-Party Respondents’ (except for Yanjin-US) 

Amazon stores were restrained from offering for sale and/or selling any products since January 

2021. [Dkt. 113 & Dkt. 456]. Their Amazon stores were reactivated around November 2022, 

nearly two years after their accounts have been wrongfully restrained. Before the injunctions, they 

used to sell hundreds of hoverboard products per day. However, they were unable to sell any 

hoverboard products during the injunction periods. 

Finally, Defendant and Third-Party Respondents have sufficiently proved the amount of 

their damages. As contrary to Plaintiffs’ assertions, Defendant and Third-Party Respondents 

offered a damage report to prove their damages, which damages were calculated by an experienced 

expert qualified as a Certified Public Accountant based on the expert’s education and training, an 

assessment of the facts and circumstances involved with this matter, expert’s experience with 

situations of similar nature, and accounting principles. [Dkt. 699]. Additionally, all the sales 

reports offered by Defendant and Third-Party Respondents are directly downloaded from 

Amazon’s platform, which were authenticated and part of the document productions provided to 

Plaintiffs during the discovery. If requested by the Court, Defendant and Third-Party Respondents 

are willing to provide their sales reports and other relevant supporting documents to the Court. 

Thus, the proof of damages Defendant and Third-Party Respondents offered are not speculative. 

C. Defendant And Third-Party Respondents Are Entitled To Damage Above The Posted Bond 

Amount. 

1. Plaintiffs initiated this case in bad faith with the sole purpose of eliminating Gyroor brand 

from hoverboard industry 

Plaintiffs brought this litigation against Defendant and Third-Party Respondents with the 

sole purpose of eliminating and burdening their competitors, sellers of Gyroor-branded products. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 705 Filed: 03/01/24 Page 10 of 16 PageID #:18158
7 

As illustrated in Defendant and Third-Party Respondents’ Motion for Damages, Yanjin-US, who 

is a reseller of Gyroor but solely sells hover shoes instead of hoverboards, was also restrained 

based on Plaintiffs’ preliminary injunction. [Dkt. 697]. Plaintiffs explained that the inclusion of 

Yanjin-US was inadvertent, but the evidence clearly show otherwise as Plaintiffs refused to release 

Yanjin-US from the injunction order even after they realized that Yanjin-US was wrongfully 

restrained and “should not have its assets restrained.” Id. 

Moreover, Plaintiffs have filed multiple litigations against numerous hoverboard sellers 

with the intention to eliminate competition and force settlements. Beginning in early August 2016, 

Plaintiffs started to issue Cease & Desist letters to more than a dozen retailers for Swagway LLC, 

one of their biggest competitors in the hoverboard market, demanding immediate desistance of 

patent infringement activities. Some retailers complied, yet others continue to sell the alleged 

infringing products. See Hangzhou Chic Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd. v. Swagway LLC, Case 

No. 16-cv-04804-HSG (N.D. Cal. 2016). On or about August 19, 2016, Chic brought a patent 

infringement lawsuit in the U.S. District Court Northern District of California against Swagway 

LLC. Nevertheless, Swagway counterclaimed that Chic made false and defamatory comments 

regarding its products. In the same year, Chic incorporated with the same strategy filling a patent 

infringement lawsuit in the U.S. District Court Central District of California against one of its 

biggest hoverboard competitors, Razor USA LLC. Beginning in 2018 and continuing through 

February 2019, Plaintiffs began lodging complaints with Amazon, asserting that the hoverboards 

sold and produced through Golabs, Inc. infringed on Plaintiffs’ design patents. On or about March 

26, 2019, Unicorn brought another patent infringement lawsuit in the U.S. District Court Northern 

District of Texas against Golabs. On or about October 2, 2020, Plaintiffs initiated another patent 

infringement lawsuit against various defendants including some Gyroor’s resellers and Tomoloo 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 705 Filed: 03/01/24 Page 11 of 16 PageID #:18159
8 

Technology Industrial Co., Ltd., one of its biggest hoverboard competitors in the United State 

District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. See Hangzhou Chic Intelligent Technology Co., 

Ltd. v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule “A”, Case No. 

20-cv-05905 (E.D. Ill). On or about March 18, 2021, Plaintiffs again, incorporated with the same 

strategy, filed another patent infringement lawsuit against its competitor DGL in the U.S. District 

Courts, New York Eastern District. Most of the defendants were forced to settle with Plaintiffs in 

this case considering of the litigation lengthy and expenses. See ESIP Series 1, LLC v. doTerra 

Int’l, LLC, No. 2:15-CV-00779-RJS, 2022 WL 656777, at *10 (D. Utah Mar. 4, 2022), 

reconsideration denied, No. 2:15-CV-00779-RJS, 2022 WL 17903397 (D. Utah Dec. 23, 2022). 

(“Patent suits should not be used as a fishing expedition for hypothetical infringements or potential 

settlement payments.”). Unexpected to Plaintiffs, Defendant and Third-Party Respondents in this 

case insisted and succussed on the merits. See SFA Sys., LLC v. Newegg Inc., 793 F.3d 1344, 1350 

(Fed. Cir. 2015) (“A pattern of litigation abuses characterized by the repeated filing of patent 

infringement actions for the sole purpose of forcing settlements, with no intention of testing the 

merits of one’s claims is relevant to a district court’s exceptional case determination under § 

285.”). 

2. Plaintiffs maintained this case in bad faith by intentionally multiplying and prolonging 

the proceedings 

Plaintiffs’ refusal to settle or dismiss this lawsuit – even after receiving the Federal Court’s 

determination and this Court’s summary judgment decision – strongly supports that they 

maintained this litigation in bad faith. Gabriel Techs. Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., 560 F. App’x 966, 

972 (Fed. Cir. 2014); see also Highmark, Inc. v. Allcare Health Mgmt. Sys., Inc., 687 F.3d 1300, 

1309 (Fed. Cir. 2012), vacated and remanded, 572 U.S. 559, 134 S. Ct. 1744, 188 L. Ed. 2d 829 

(2014) (explaining that subjective bad faith can be established by showing that the “lack of 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 705 Filed: 03/01/24 Page 12 of 16 PageID #:18160
9 

objective foundation for the claim was either known or so obvious that it should have been known 

by the party asserting the claim”; Eon-Net LP v. Flagstar Bancorp, 653 F.3d 1314, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 

2011) (affirming a trial court’s determination that a patentee “acted in bad faith by exploiting the 

high cost to defend complex litigation to extract a nuisance value settlement” from the accused 

infringers). 

After the Federal Circuit vacated Plaintiffs’ preliminary injunction orders and found that 

Plaintiffs have failed to show a likelihood of success of infringement as “[e]ven a cursory review 

of the four accused products shows that they are different from each other, display features not 

found in the asserted patents, and lack features shown in the asserted patents,” reasonable litigant 

should consider of dismissing or settling this case. ABC Corp. I v. P’ship & Unincorporated 

Associations Identified on Schedule “A”, 52 F.4th 934, 944 (Fed. Cir. 2022). 

However, to everyone’s surprise, after receiving the Federal Circuit’s decisions, Plaintiffs 

frivolously filed their third and renewed motion for temporary restraining order and preliminary 

injunction without offering any new evidence or arguments. [Dkt. 592-596]. Instead, they 

attempted to introduce a brand-new expert report to the Court after the closure of expert discovery. 

Id. Moreover, despite that the Federal Circuit criticized the opinions of Plaintiffs’ expert, Paul 

Hatch, because his analysis violated legal standard, Plaintiff continued to unreasonably rely on 

Paul Hatch’s outdated opinions in seeking the renewed injunction relief. [Dkt. 626, p. 9]. Further, 

after the Federal Circuit clearly pointed out that the previous preliminary injunctions do not meet 

the specificity requirement of Rule 65(d), Plaintiffs blindly filed the renewed motion for 

preliminary injunction against Third-Party Respondents for all of the “accused products” even 

though some of the Third-Party Respondents did not sell all the alleged “accused products”. [Dkt. 

588]. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 705 Filed: 03/01/24 Page 13 of 16 PageID #:18161
10 

Further, after Plaintiffs’ renewed motion for preliminary injunction was denied by this 

Court, Plaintiffs filed a motion for return of bond even though the final determination on the merit 

has not occurred in this case. [Dkt. 653, 654]. Plaintiffs’ motion for return of bond is premature 

and frivolous since it is well established that a Rule 65.1 motion may not precede a final 

determination on the merits. Wabash Publ’g Co. v. Flanagan, 89 C 1923, 1990 WL 19977, at *1 

(N.D.Ill. Feb.27, 1990). 

Moreover, this Court granted Defendant and Third-Party Respondents’ motion for 

summary judgment of non-infringement and dismissed all of Plaintiffs’ claims as a reasonable jury 

could find that the accused products are not substantially similar to the Patents-in-Suit. [Dkt.686]. 

The Court finds that Plaintiffs’ argument that an ordinary observer would pay little attention to the 

small differences identified by the Defendant is “an unreasonable assessment of the similarities 

and differences.” Id. at p.17. Plaintiffs’ positions regarding the prior art lacks footpads and 

suggests closed fenders is “oddly,” and “this characterization cannot be correct” Id. at p. 19. 

Any reasonable litigant would believe that this case lacks merits after the Federal Circuit 

vacated the preliminary injunction orders by stating Plaintiffs have failed to show a likelihood of 

success of infringement and this Court has already opined that “a reasonable jury could find that 

the accused products are not substantially similar to the patents in suit, such that an ordinary 

observer would not be deceived into believing that the accused products are the same as the 

patented design.” [Dkt. 626, p. 34]. However, instead of settling this case in good faith and 

dismissing all the claims, Plaintiffs chose to appeal the Court’s decision on non-infringement to 

the Federal Circuit with the knowledge that the appeal lacks merit and will likely be unsuccessful. 

[Dkt. 691]. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 705 Filed: 03/01/24 Page 14 of 16 PageID #:18162
11 

For the foregoing reasons, the Court should find Plaintiffs initiated and proceeded this 

proceeding in bad faith. Consequently, Defendant and Third-Party Respondents are entitled to 

damages above the posted bond amount. 

IV. CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant and Third-Party Respondents respectfully request the 

Court grant their Motion for Damages and award them damages including prejudgment interest. 

Date: 3/1/2024 

 

/s/ Na Zhang 

Na Zhang, Esq. 

GLACIER LAW LLP 

506 Second Ave., Ste 1516 

Seattle, WA 98104 

queena.zhang@glacier.law

206-397-8633 

GLACIER LAW LLP 

41 Madison Avenue, Ste 2529 

New York, NY 10010 

Wei Wang, Esq. 

wei.wang@glacier.law

332-777-7315 

GLACIER LAW LLP 

200 E. Randolph Dr., Ste. 5100 

Chicago, IL 60601 

Ruoting Men, Esq. 

ruoting.men@glacier.law 

Tianyu Ju, Esq. 

iris.ju@glacier.law

312-270-0413 

Attorneys for Defendant and 

Third-Party Respondents

 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 705 Filed: 03/01/24 Page 15 of 16 PageID #:18163
12 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this March 1, 2024, 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: 03/01/2024 /s/ Na Zhang 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 705 Filed: 03/01/24 Page 16 of 16 PageID #:18164