1 

EXHIBIT 1 

THREE‐WAY COMPARISON BETWEEN THE INFRINGING PRODUCTS, THE PATENTS‐IN‐ISSUE 

AND THE PURPORTED CLOSEST PRIOR ART. 

The ’D723 Patent Compares To Gyroor Products A Through D 

Table 1-1: Comparison of the ’D723 Patent to the Gyroor Products A through D, in View of 

the ’D906 Patent

Gyroor Product A1 Gyroor Product B2

Gyroor Product C3 Gyroor Product D4

FIG. 3 of the prior art (’D906 Patent) 

                                                       

1 Sold by at least Defendants: Gyroor (Gyroor.com; gyroorboard.com); Gaodeshang‐US; 

Gyroshoes; HGSM; Urbanmax; Jiangyou‐US; Gyroor‐US 

2

 Sold by at least Defendants: Gyroor (Gyroor.com; gyroorboard.com); Gaodeshang-US; 

3

 Sold by at least Defendants: Gyroor-US, Jiangyou-US; and Gyroor (Gyroor.com; 

gyroorboard.com); 

4

 Sold by at least Defendants Fengchi-US; Gyroor (Gyroor.com; gyroorboard.com);

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 430-1 Filed: 09/24/21 Page 1 of 24 PageID #:11774
2 

Table 1-2: Comparison of the ’D723 Patent to the Gyroor Products A through D, in View 

of the ’D906 Patent

FIG. 3 of the ’D723 patent 

Gyroor Product A 

Gyroor Product B 

Gyroor Product C Gyroor Product D 

FIG. 2 of the prior art (’D906 Patent) 

   

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 430-1 Filed: 09/24/21 Page 2 of 24 PageID #:11775
3 

Table 1-3: Comparison of the ’D723 Patent to the Gyroor Products A through D, in View 

of the ’D906 Patent

FIG. 2 of the ’D723 patent

Gyroor Product A Gyroor Product B 

Gyroor Product C Gyroor Product D 

FIG. 3 of the prior art (’D906 Patent) 

   

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 430-1 Filed: 09/24/21 Page 3 of 24 PageID #:11776
4 

Table 1-4: Comparison of the ’D723 Patent to the Gyroor Products A through D, in View 

of the ’D906 Patent

FIG. 6 of the ’D723 patent

Gyroor Product A 

Gyroor Product B 

Gyroor Product C Gyroor Product D 

FIG. 4 of the prior art (’D906 Patent) 

   

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 430-1 Filed: 09/24/21 Page 4 of 24 PageID #:11777
5 

Table 1-5: Comparison of the ’D723 Patent to the Gyroor Products A through D, in View 

of the ’D906 Patent

FIG. 5 of the ’D723 patent

Gyroor Product A 

Gyroor Product B 

Gyroor Product C Gyroor Product D 

FIG. 5 of the prior art (’D906 Patent) 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 430-1 Filed: 09/24/21 Page 5 of 24 PageID #:11778
6 

In the eyes of the ordinary observer, the claimed design of the ‘723 is substantially the same as 

the overall visual impression presented by the Accused Products. Unlike the ‘906 Patent, the 

claimed design of the ‘723 Patent 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.  

In the eyes of the ordinary observer, the claimed design of the ‘723 is substantially the same as 

the visual impression presented by the Accused Products. Also, the Accused Products are closer 

to the claimed design of the ‘723 Patent than to the ‘906 Patent.  

   

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 430-1 Filed: 09/24/21 Page 6 of 24 PageID #:11779
7 

The ’D256 Patent Compares To Gyroor Products A Through D 

Table 2-1: Comparison of the ’D256 Patent to the Gyroor Products A through D, in View 

of the ’D906 Patent

FIG. 1 of the ’D256 patent 

Gyroor Product A Gyroor Product B 

Gyroor Product C Gyroor Product D 

FIG. 3 of the prior art (’D906 Patent) 

   

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 430-1 Filed: 09/24/21 Page 7 of 24 PageID #:11780
8 

Table 2-2: Comparison of the ’D256Patent to the Gyroor Products A through D, in View 

of the ’D906 Patent

FIG. 3 of the ’D256 patent 

Gyroor Product A 

Gyroor Product B 

Gyroor Product C Gyroor Product D 

FIG. 2 of the prior art (’D906 Patent) 

   

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 430-1 Filed: 09/24/21 Page 8 of 24 PageID #:11781
9 

Table 2-3: Comparison of the ’D256 Patent to the Gyroor Products A through D, in View 

of the ’D906 Patent

FIG. 2 of the ’D256 patent

Gyroor Product A Gyroor Product B 

Gyroor Product C Gyroor Product D 

FIG. 3 of the prior art (’D906 Patent) 

   

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 430-1 Filed: 09/24/21 Page 9 of 24 PageID #:11782
10 

Table 2-4: Comparison of the ’D256 Patent to the Gyroor Products A through D, in View 

of the ’D906 Patent

FIG. 6 of the ’D256 patent

Gyroor Product A Gyroor Product B 

Gyroor Product C 

Gyroor Product D 

FIG. 4 of the prior art (’D906 Patent) 

   

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 430-1 Filed: 09/24/21 Page 10 of 24 PageID #:11783
11 

Table 2-5: Comparison of the ’D256 Patent to the Gyroor Products A through D, in View 

of the ’D906 Patent

FIG. 5 of the ’D256 patent

Gyroor Product A 

Gyroor Product B 

Gyroor Product C Gyroor Product D 

FIG. 5 of the prior art (’D906 Patent) 

In the eyes of the ordinary observer, the claimed design of the ‘256 is substantially the same as 

the overall visual impression presented by the Accused Products. Unlike the ‘906 Patent, the 

claimed design of the ‘256 Patent and the Accused Products share the same overall impression 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 430-1 Filed: 09/24/21 Page 11 of 24 PageID #:11784
12 

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.  

In the eyes of the ordinary observer, the claimed design of the ‘256 is substantially the same as 

the visual impression presented by the Accused Products. Also, the Accused Products are closer 

to the claimed design of the ‘256 Patent than to the ‘906 Patent. 

   

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 430-1 Filed: 09/24/21 Page 12 of 24 PageID #:11785
13 

The ’D195 Patent Compares To Gyroor Products A Through D 

Table 3-1: Comparison of the ’D195 Patent to the Gyroor Products A through D, in View 

of the ’D906 Patent

FIG. 1 of the ’D195 patent 

Gyroor Product A Gyroor Product B 

Gyroor Product C Gyroor Product D 

FIG. 3 of the prior art (’D906 Patent) 

   

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 430-1 Filed: 09/24/21 Page 13 of 24 PageID #:11786
14 

Table 3-2: Comparison of the ’D195 Patent to the Gyroor Products A through D, in View 

of the ’D906 Patent

FIG. 3 of the ’D195 patent 

Gyroor Product A 

Gyroor Product B 

Gyroor Product C Gyroor Product D 

FIG. 2 of the prior art (’D906 Patent) 

   

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 430-1 Filed: 09/24/21 Page 14 of 24 PageID #:11787
15 

Table 3-3: Comparison of the ’D195 Patent to the Gyroor Products A through D, in View 

of the ’D906 Patent

FIG. 2 of the ’D195 patent

Gyroor Product A Gyroor Product B 

Gyroor Product C Gyroor Product D 

FIG. 3 of the prior art (’D906 Patent) 

   

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 430-1 Filed: 09/24/21 Page 15 of 24 PageID #:11788
16 

Table 3-4: Comparison of the ’D195 Patent to the Gyroor Products A through D, in View 

of the ’D906 Patent

FIG. 6 of the ’D195 patent

Gyroor Product A 

Gyroor Product B 

Gyroor Product C Gyroor Product D 

FIG. 4 of the prior art (’D906 Patent) 

   

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 430-1 Filed: 09/24/21 Page 16 of 24 PageID #:11789
17 

Table 3-5: Comparison of the ’D195 Patent to the Gyroor Products A through D, in View 

of the ’D906 Patent

                    FIG. 5 of the ’D195 patent

Gyroor Product A Gyroor Product B 

Gyroor Product C Gyroor Product D 

FIG. 5 of the prior art (’D906 Patent) 

   

In the eyes of the ordinary observer, the claimed design of the ‘195 is substantially the same as 

the overall visual impression presented by the Accused Products. Unlike the ‘906 Patent, the 

claimed design of the ‘195 Patent and the Accused Products share an integrated ‘hourglass’ 

body with many horizontal styling lines across the body and a relatively flat surface across the 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 430-1 Filed: 09/24/21 Page 17 of 24 PageID #:11790
18 

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. 

In the eyes of the ordinary observer, the claimed design of the ‘195 is also substantially the 

same as the visual impression presented by the Accused Products. Also, the Accused Products 

are closer to the claimed design of the ‘195 Patent than to the ‘906 Patent. 

   

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 430-1 Filed: 09/24/21 Page 18 of 24 PageID #:11791
19 

The ’D112 Patent Compares To Gyroor Products B And D 

Table 4-1: Comparison of the ’D112 Patent to the Gyroor Products B and D, in View of 

the ’D906 Patent

FIG. 1 of the ’D112 patent 

Gyroor Product B 

Gyroor Product D 

FIG. 3 of the prior art (’D906 Patent) 

   

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 430-1 Filed: 09/24/21 Page 19 of 24 PageID #:11792
20 

Table 4-2: Comparison of the ’D112 Patent to the Gyroor Products B and D, in View of 

the ’D906 Patent

FIG. 3 of the ’D112 patent 

Gyroor Product B 

Gyroor Product D 

FIG. 2 of the prior art (’D906 Patent) 

   

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 430-1 Filed: 09/24/21 Page 20 of 24 PageID #:11793
21 

Table 4-3: Comparison of the ’D112 Patent to the Gyroor Products B and D, in View of 

the ’D906 Patent

FIG. 2 of the ’D112 patent

Gyroor Product B 

Gyroor Product D 

FIG. 3 of the prior art (’D906 Patent) 

   

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 430-1 Filed: 09/24/21 Page 21 of 24 PageID #:11794
22 

Table 4-4: Comparison of the ’D112 Patent to the Gyroor Products B and D, in View of 

the ’D906 Patent

FIG. 6 of the ’D112 patent

Gyroor Product B 

Gyroor Product D 

FIG. 4 of the prior art (’D906 Patent) 

   

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 430-1 Filed: 09/24/21 Page 22 of 24 PageID #:11795
23 

Table 5-5: Comparison of the ’D112 Patent to the Gyroor Products B and D, in View of 

the ’D906 Patent

FIG. 5 of the ’D112 patent

Gyroor Product B 

Gyroor Product D 

FIG. 5 of the prior art (’D906 Patent) 

In the eyes of the ordinary observer, the claimed design of the ‘112 is substantially the same as 

the overall visual impression presented by the Accused Products. Unlike the ‘906 Patent, the 

claimed design of the ‘112 Patent and the Accused Products share an integrated ‘hourglass’ 

body with many lines angling across the body and a relatively flat surface across the top, arched 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 430-1 Filed: 09/24/21 Page 23 of 24 PageID #:11796
24 

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

the prior art the foot plates stretch across almost the full width of main body. 

In the eyes of the ordinary observer, the claimed design of the ‘112 is also substantially the 

same as the visual impression presented by the Accused Products Gyroor B and Gyroor D, 

which are also closer to the claimed design of the ‘112 Patent than to the cited prior art of the 

‘112 Patent. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 430-1 Filed: 09/24/21 Page 24 of 24 PageID #:11797