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

PLAINTIFFS’ LOCAL RULE 56.1 STATEMENT OF ADDITIONAL 

UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS AND RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’

STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS 

Pursuant to L.R. 56.1(b)(2) and (3), Plaintiffs Hangzhou Chic Intelligent Technology Co., 

Ltd. (“Chic”) and Unicorn Global, Inc. (“Unicorn”, and collectively with Chic, “Plaintiffs”) 

hereby submit the following: (1) Gyroor-US, Gyroor, Urbanmax, Fengchi-US, HGSM, 

Gaodeshang-US, and Gyroshoes (collectively, “Defendants”) Rule 56.1(a) Statement of Material 

Facts (Dkt. 630) and (2) Plaintiffs’ Statement of Undisputed Material Facts in support of its 

Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Dkt. 628). 

Plaintiffs’ Response to Defendant’s Rule 56.1(a) Statement of Undisputed Material Facts

I. THE PARTIES

A. Plaintiffs

1. Plaintiff Chic (“Chic”) Chic is located in the Liangzhu University Science and 

Technology Park, Yuhang District, Hangzhou, China. [Am. Compl., Dkt. 101, ¶ 6]. Chic designs 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 636 Filed: 01/25/23 Page 1 of 38 PageID #:16179
2

and sells hoverboards, among other technologies, which incorporates the Patents-in-Suit 

(collectively, “Plaintiffs’ Products”). Id. at ¶7.

RESPONSE: Undisputed.

2. Plaintiff Unicorn (“Unicorn”) is a corporation organized under the laws of the 

State of California, having its principal place of business in Ontario, California. Id. at ¶8. 

Unicorn is the exclusive U.S. distributor of Plaintiffs’ Products. Id. 

RESPONSE: Undisputed that Unicorn is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of 

California, having its principal place of business in Ontario, California, and is the exclusive U.S. 

distributor of Plaintiffs’ hoverboard products.

B. Defendant

3. Gyroor-US is a Chinese company, incorporated in China, with its principal place 

of business in Gongguan, China. [Dkt. No. 103, Countercl. ¶4].

RESPONSE: Undisputed that Gyroor-US is a Chinese company, incorporated in China, with its 

principal place of business in Dongguan, China.

4. Defendant distributed hoverboard products ASIN No. B07PHFP8GB (“Accused 

Product A”) [Dkt. No. 54-1].

RESPONSE: Undisputed that Defendant has sold accused hoverboard products, including 

through the Amazon catalog page identified as ASIN No. B07PHFP8GB.

C. Third-Party Respondents

5. Gyroor is a Limited Liability Company incorporated in Shenzhen, China. [Dkt. 

No. 527, ¶2].

RESPONSE: Undisputed.

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 636 Filed: 01/25/23 Page 2 of 38 PageID #:16180
3

6. Urbanmax is a Limited Liability Company incorporated in Shenzhen, China.

[Dkt. No. 528, ¶2].

RESPONSE: Undisputed.

7. GaodeshangUS is a Limited Liability Company incorporated in Hefei, China.

[Dkt. No. 525, ¶2].

RESPONSE: Undisputed.

8. Fengchi-US is a Limited Liability Company incorporated in Shenzhen, China.

[Dkt. No. 521, ¶2].

RESPONSE: Undisputed.

9. Gyroshoes is a Limited Liability Company incorporated in Shenzhen, China.

[Dkt. No. 524, ¶2].

RESPONSE: Undisputed.

10. HGSM is a Limited Liability Company incorporated in Hefei, China. [Dkt. No. 

526, ¶2].

RESPONSE: Undisputed.

11. Third-Party Respondents are no longer defendants in this case as the Federal 

Circuit vacated the Court’s order granting Plaintiffs’ motion to amend the Schedule A to include 

the Third-Party Respondents as defendants on October 28, 2022. [Dkt. 590].

RESPONSE: Disputed that Gyroor, Urbanmax, Fengchi-US, HGSM, Gaodeshang-US, and 

Gyroshoes are no longer defendants in this case. The Federal Circuit opinion merely vacated “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.” (Dkt. 590 at 18.)

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 636 Filed: 01/25/23 Page 3 of 38 PageID #:16181
4

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

12. On August 17, 2020, Chic and Unicorn (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed the 

Complaint. [Compl., Dkt. No. 1].

RESPONSE: Undisputed.

13. On November 19, 2020, Plaintiffs filed the Third Amended Complaint [Am. Compl., 

Dkt. 101]. The Amended Complaint alleged four counts of design patent infringement

against multiple defendants based on alleged infringement of U.S. Design Patent Nos. 

D737,723 (“the ’D723 patent”), D738,256 (“the ’D256 patent”), D785,112 (“the ’D112 

patent”), D784,195 (“the ’D195 patent”) (collectively, “Patents-in-Suit”). Id. at ¶¶14-56.

RESPONSE: Undisputed.

14. This Court has original subject matter jurisdiction over the claims in this action 

under the Patent Act, 35 U.S.C. § 1, et seq., 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a)-(b). Id. at ¶4.

RESPONSE: Undisputed.

15. Venue is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1391, and this Court may 

properly exercise personal jurisdiction over Defendants. Id. at ¶5.

RESPONSE: Undisputed.

III. THE ASSERTED DESIGN PATENTS – PATENTS-IN-SUIT

16. The ’D723 patent and the ’D256 patent are entitled “Self-Balancing Vehicle,” and 

were issued on September 1, 2015 and September 8, 2015, respectively. Id. at ¶16.

RESPONSE: Undisputed.

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 636 Filed: 01/25/23 Page 4 of 38 PageID #:16182
5

17. The following table illustrates the figures in the ’D723 patent. Id. at ¶17.

Patent Number

D737,723

Claim Issue Date

September 1, 

2015

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 636 Filed: 01/25/23 Page 5 of 38 PageID #:16183
6

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 636 Filed: 01/25/23 Page 6 of 38 PageID #:16184
7

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 636 Filed: 01/25/23 Page 7 of 38 PageID #:16185
8

RESPONSE: Undisputed.

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 636 Filed: 01/25/23 Page 8 of 38 PageID #:16186
9

18. The following table illustrates the figures in the ’D256 patent. Id. at ¶18.

Patent Number

D738,256

Claim Issue Date

September 8, 

2015

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 636 Filed: 01/25/23 Page 9 of 38 PageID #:16187
10

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 636 Filed: 01/25/23 Page 10 of 38 PageID #:16188
11

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 636 Filed: 01/25/23 Page 11 of 38 PageID #:16189
12

RESPONSE: Undisputed.

19. Both the ‘D195 Patent and the ‘D112 Patent are titled “Human-Machine 

Interaction Vehicle”, and were issued on April 17, 2017 and April 25, 2017, respectively. Id. at ¶ 

19.

RESPONSE: Undisputed, except that the ‘D195 Patent was issued on April 18, 2017 (see Dkt. 

101, ¶19).

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 636 Filed: 01/25/23 Page 12 of 38 PageID #:16190
13

20. The following table illustrates the figures in the ‘D112 patent. Id. at ¶20.

Patent Number

D785,112

Claim Issue Date

April 25, 2017

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 636 Filed: 01/25/23 Page 13 of 38 PageID #:16191
14

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 636 Filed: 01/25/23 Page 14 of 38 PageID #:16192
15

RESPONSE: Undisputed.

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 636 Filed: 01/25/23 Page 15 of 38 PageID #:16193
16

21. The following table illustrates the figures in the ’D195 patent. Id. at ¶20.

Patent Number

D784,195

Claim Issue Date

April 18, 2017

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 636 Filed: 01/25/23 Page 16 of 38 PageID #:16194
17

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 636 Filed: 01/25/23 Page 17 of 38 PageID #:16195
18

RESPONSE: Undisputed.

IV. THE ACCUSED PRODUCTS

22. Initially, only one product “Gyroor-A” (ASIN B07PHFP8GB “Accused Product 

A”) was identified in the accompany Schedule A to the Third Amended Complaint. [Dkt. No. 

101-14].

RESPONSE: Disputed to the extent that Defendants suggest that the accused product is directed 

to the ASIN, and not the product, itself. Defendants sold an accused product labeled as “Gyroor 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 636 Filed: 01/25/23 Page 18 of 38 PageID #:16196
19

T581 Hoverboard 6.5” Off Road All Terrain Hoverboards with Bluetooth Speaker & LED Lights 

Two-Wheel Self Balancing Hoverboard”. (Dkt 101-7, at 11; see also Dkt. 227-1, Ex. 3 at 19, 25, 

40, 56, 72.) The same accused product is also referenced by at least the following ASIN: 

B07WPK7KY3. (Dkt. 227-1, Ex. 3 at 45.)

23. “Gyroor-B” (ASIN B08R23QQT8 “Accused Product B”) was later identified in 

the “Amended Schedule A”. [Dkt. No. 227].

RESPONSE: Disputed to the extent that Defendants suggest that the accused product is directed 

to the ASIN, and not the product, itself. Defendants sold an accused product labeled as “Gyroor 

G2 Hoverboards Bluetooth Speaks & LED Lights Two-Wheel Self Balancing Hoverboard”. 

(Dkt. 227-1, Ex. 3 at 19, 25, 30, 56.) The same accused product is also referenced by at least the 

following ASIN: B07S4KXRQR. (Dkt. 227-1, Ex. 3 at 32.)

24. “Gyroor-C” (“Accused Product C”) was identified when Plaintiffs applied for the 

second preliminary injunction. [Dkt. No. 385].

RESPONSE: Disputed to the extent that Defendants suggest that the accused product was only 

identified when Plaintiffs applied for the second preliminary injunction. In support of Plaintiffs’ 

motion for an order to show cause why Defendants should not be held in contempt of the 

preliminary injunction entered in November 2020 (Dkt. 326), Plaintiffs’ identified that 

Defendants sold an accused product labeled “Gyroor T580 Hoverboard Self Balancing Scooter 

with Music Speaker LED Lights, 6.5 inch Two-Wheel Electric Scooter for Kids Adult -

UL2272.” (Dkt. 328-5, 328-6.) The same accused product is referenced by at least the following 

ASINs: B07GFK49QR, B07C3C861F, B07GFKZLD3. (Dkt. 328 at ¶¶ 16–18; see also Dkt. 328-

6 at 3; Dkt. 328-7; Dkt. 328-8.)

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 636 Filed: 01/25/23 Page 19 of 38 PageID #:16197
20

25. “Gyroor-D” (ASIN B08NT551P4 “Accused Product D”) was identified in the 

“Amended Schedule A”. [Dkt. No. 227].

RESPONSE: Disputed to the extent that Defendants suggest that the accused product is directed 

to the ASIN, and not the product, itself. Defendants sold an accused product labeled as “Gyroor 

Hoverboard Offroad All Terrain Flash Wheel Self Balancing G5 Hoverboards with Bluetooth 

Speaker.” (Dkt. 227-1, Ex. 3 at 19, 25, 56.) The same accused product is referenced by at least 

the following ASINs: B08VXGN6TR, B08NSYZMHY. (Dkt. 328 at ¶¶ 37; see also Dkt. 328-

38.)

26. “Gyroor-E” (ASIN B08RYMXRWM “Accused Product E”) was first identified in 

the “Exhibit B” of the proposed order of the second preliminary injunction order. [Dkt. No. 456].

RESPONSE: Disputed to the extent that Defendants suggest that the accused product is directed 

to the ASIN, and not the product, itself, and that the accused product was only identified in 

Exhibit B of the proposed order of the second preliminary injunction order. Plaintiffs’ identified 

that Defendants sold “Gyroor Hoverboard Off Road All Terrain 6.5” Two-Wheel G11 Flash 

LED Light Self Balancing Hoverboards with Bluetooth Music Speak and UL2272 Certified for 

Kids Adults Gift” in the supporting papers for entry of a preliminary injunction in 2021. (Dkt. 

383 at ¶ 5; see also, e.g., Dkt. 383-3 at 44.)

27. The motion to clarify whether Accused Product E is subject to this litigation is 

currently pending with the Court. [Dkt. No. 625].

RESPONSE: Undisputed that Defendants’ motion to clarify is currently pending with the Court. 

Disputed to the extent that Defendants suggest that Accused Product E is no longer an accused 

product in this case. (Dkt. 627.)

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 636 Filed: 01/25/23 Page 20 of 38 PageID #:16198
21

A. Figures of Accused Product A

28. The following table illustrate the figures of Accused Product A. [Dkt. No. 626].

Group A Product – Top View

Group A Product – Bottom View

Group A Product – Front View

Group A Product – Side View / 

Side View with lights on

Group A Product – Perspective 

View

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 636 Filed: 01/25/23 Page 21 of 38 PageID #:16199
22

RESPONSE: Disputed to the extent that the above representative photographs are not the 

photographs included in Dkt. 626, as cited. Undisputed that the above table provides 

representative photographs of an accused product from certain angles. 

B. Figures of Accused Product B

29. The following table illustrate the figures of Accused Product B. [Dkt. No. 419].

Group B Product – Top View

Group B Product – Bottom View

Group B Product – Front View

Group B Product – Side View 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 636 Filed: 01/25/23 Page 22 of 38 PageID #:16200
23

Group B Product – Perspective 

View

RESPONSE: Disputed to the extent that the above representative photographs are not the 

photographs included in Dkt. 419, as cited. Undisputed that the above table provides 

representative photographs of an accused product from certain angles.

C. Figures of Accused Product C

30. The following table illustrate the figures of Accused Product C. [Dkt. No. 626].

Group C Product – Top View

Group C Product – Bottom View

Group C Product – Front View

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 636 Filed: 01/25/23 Page 23 of 38 PageID #:16201
24

Group C Product – Side View /

Side View with lights on

Group C Product – Perspective 

View

RESPONSE: Disputed to the extent that the above representative photographs are not the 

photographs included in Dkt. 626, as cited. Undisputed that the above table provides 

representative photographs of an accused product from certain angles.

D. Figures of Accused Product D

31. The following table illustrate the figures of Accused Product D. [Dkt. No. 385].

Group D Product – Top View

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 636 Filed: 01/25/23 Page 24 of 38 PageID #:16202
25

Group D Product – Bottom View

Group D Product – Front View

Group D Product – Side View /

Side View with lights on

Group D Product – Perspective 

View

RESPONSE: Disputed to the extent that the above representative photographs are not the 

photographs included in Dkt. 385, as cited. Undisputed that the above table provides 

representative photographs of an accused product from certain angles.

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 636 Filed: 01/25/23 Page 25 of 38 PageID #:16203
26

E. Figures of Accused Product E

32. The following table illustrate the figures of Accused Product E. [Dkt. No. 626].

Group E Product – Top View

Group E Product – Bottom View

Group E Product – Front View

Group E Product – Side View /

Side View with lights on

Group E Product – Perspective 

View

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 636 Filed: 01/25/23 Page 26 of 38 PageID #:16204
27

RESPONSE: Disputed to the extent that the above representative photographs are not the 

photographs included in Dkt. 626, as cited. Undisputed that the above table provides 

representative photographs of an accused product from certain angles.

V. PRIOR ART – U.S. DESIGN PATENT D739,906

33. The U.S. Design Patent D739,906 (D’906 Patent) was filed on March 12, 2013, 

earlier than all the asserted Patents-in-Suit. See D’906 Patent attached as Exhibit 1.

RESPONSE: Undisputed.

34. The following table illustrates the figures in the ‘D906 Patent. See Id.

Top View

Bottom View

Front/Back 

View

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 636 Filed: 01/25/23 Page 27 of 38 PageID #:16205
28

Side View

Perspective 

View

RESPONSE: Undisputed.

VI. SEPARATE U.S. DESIGN PATENTS ISSUED TO THE ACCUSED PRODUCTS 

A. U.S. Design Patents D808,857

35. U.S. Design Patents D808,857 (the “D’857 Patent”) was issued to Accused 

Product A, Accused Product C, and Accused Product E on January 30, 2018. See D’857 Patent 

attached as Exhibit 2.

RESPONSE: Undisputed that the D’857 Patent was issued on January 30, 2018 to Shenzen 

Chitado Technology CO., LTD. (Ex. 2). The remainder of the Statement is unsupported by 

citation to evidence. See L.R. 56.1(d)(2). 

36. The D’857 Patent was examined against all four Patents-in-suit. See Id. at § 

References Cited.

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 636 Filed: 01/25/23 Page 28 of 38 PageID #:16206
29

RESPONSE: Undisputed that the D’857 Patent lists each of the Patents-in-suit on its face as 

“References Cited.” The remainder of the Statement is unsupported by citation to evidence. See 

L.R. 56.1(d)(2). 

37. The following table illustrates the figures in the ‘D857 Patent. See Id.

Top View

Bottom View

Front/Back 

View

Side View

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 636 Filed: 01/25/23 Page 29 of 38 PageID #:16207
30

Perspective 

View

RESPONSE: Disputed that the front and back view are identical, as suggested by the chart 

provided in ¶ 37. “FIG. 1 is a front view of the hoverboard...FIG. 2 is a back view thereof” (Dkt. 

630-2):

 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 636 Filed: 01/25/23 Page 30 of 38 PageID #:16208
31

B. U.S. Design Patents D808,856

38. U.S. Design Patents D808,856 (the “D’856 Patent”) was issued to Accused 

Product B on January 30, 2018. See D’856 Patent attached as Exhibit 3. 

RESPONSE: Undisputed that the D’856 Patent was issued on January 30, 2018 to Shenzen 

Chitado Technology CO., LTD. (Ex. 3). The remainder of the Statement is unsupported by 

citation to evidence. See L.R. 56.1(d)(2). 

39. The D’856 Patent was examined against all four Patents-in-suit. See Id. at § 

References Cited.

RESPONSE: Undisputed that the D’856 Patent lists each of the Patents-in-suit on its face as 

“References Cited.” The remainder of the Statement is unsupported by citation to evidence. See 

L.R. 56.1(d)(2). 

40. The following table illustrates the figures in the ‘D856 Patent. See id.

D’856 Patent - Top View

D’856 Patent - Bottom 

View

D’856 Patent - Front View

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 636 Filed: 01/25/23 Page 31 of 38 PageID #:16209
32

D’856 Patent - Side View

D’856 Patent - Perspective 

View

RESPONSE: Undisputed. 

C. U.S. Design Patents D891,297

41. U.S. Design Patents D891,297 (the “D’297 Patent”) was issued to Accused 

Product D on July 28, 2020. See D’297 Patent attached as Exhibit 4. 

RESPONSE: Undisputed that the D’297 Patent was issued on July 28, 2020 to Shenzen Chitado 

Technology CO., LTD. (Ex. 4). The remainder of the Statement is unsupported by citation to 

evidence. See L.R. 56.1(d)(2). 

42. The D’297 Patent was examined against all four Patents-in-suit. See Id. at § 

References Cited.

RESPONSE: Undisputed that the D’297 Patent lists each of the Patents-in-suit on its face as 

“References Cited.” The remainder of the Statement is unsupported by citation to evidence. See 

L.R. 56.1(d)(2). 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 636 Filed: 01/25/23 Page 32 of 38 PageID #:16210
33

43. The following table illustrates the figures in the ‘D297 Patent. See id.

D’297 Patent - Top View

D’297 Patent - Bottom 

View

D’297 Patent - Front View

D’297 Patent - Side View

D’297 Patent - Perspective 

View

RESPONSE: Undisputed. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 636 Filed: 01/25/23 Page 33 of 38 PageID #:16211
34

VII. RELEVANT UTILITY PATENT – US 8,738,278

44. The general design concept of a hoverboard was disclosed as early as in 2013, 

through the application of the utility patent U.S. 8,738,278 (the “‘278 Patent”) – “two-wheel, 

self-balancing personal vehicle with independently movable foot placement sections.” See ‘278 

Patent attached as Exhibit 5.

RESPONSE: Undisputed.

45. The ‘278 Patent comprises, among other things,

a. a first foot placement section and a second foot placement section that are coupled 

to one another and are independently movable with respect to one another;

b. a first wheel associated with the first foot placement section and a second wheel 

associated with the second foot placement section, the first and second wheels 

being spaced apart and substantially parallel to one another;

RESPONSE: Disputed that the ‘278 Patent comprises the above elements. The Statement is 

unsupported by citation to evidence. See L.R. 56.1(d)(2). 

46. The following table illustrates an embodiment of the ‘278 Patent, comprising twofoot placement sections and two wheels. See Id.

RESPONSE: Undisputed that the above appears to be a partial reproduction of Figure 1 of the 

‘278 Patent. The remainder of the Statement is unsupported by citation to evidence. See L.R. 

56.1(d)(2).

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 636 Filed: 01/25/23 Page 34 of 38 PageID #:16212
35

Plaintiffs’ Rule 56.1(b) Statement of Additional Undisputed Material Facts

47. Hangzhou Chic Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd, is the assignee and owner of the 

Patents-in-Suit. (Dkt. 101 at ¶ 6.)

48. Unicorn Global, Inc. is the exclusive licensee of the Patents-in-Suit in the United 

States. (Dkt. 101 at ¶ 8.)

49. Defendants are Chinese companies and individuals that operate online ecommerce stores in the business of selling hoverboards. (See Dkt. 309 at ¶ 9; Dkt. 368, 

Counterclaims, ¶¶ 4–5; Dkt. 463, Counterclaims, ¶¶ 4–5; Dkt. 464, Counterclaims, ¶¶ 4–55; Dkt. 

465, Counterclaims, ¶¶ 4–5.)

50. Plaintiffs originally filed their complaint in August 2020 alleging infringement of 

the Patents-In-Suit against several online sellers of hoverboards (Dkt. 1), including Defendant

Gyroor-US. (Dkt. 4, Schedule “A”.)

51. Plaintiffs later filed the operative Third Amended Complaint on November 19, 

2020. (Dkt. 101.)

52. On November 20, 2020, supported by declarations from a design patent expert 

(Dkt. 106-1) and a damages expert (Dkt.. 106-2), Plaintiffs moved for preliminary injunction 

against the defendants. (Dkt. 105.)

53. On November 24, 2020, the Court granted the preliminary injunction covering the 

“defendants” then identified in Schedule A, plus “their affiliates, officers, agents, servants, 

employees, attorneys, confederates, and all persons acting for, with, by, through, under or in 

active concert with them.” (Dkt. 113, “the 2020 Preliminary Injunction”.) 

54. On May 6, 2021, Plaintiffs moved to amend the list of defendants identified in 

Schedule A after identifying other storefronts that were associated with the defendants named in 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 636 Filed: 01/25/23 Page 35 of 38 PageID #:16213
36

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.” (Dkt.. 227.)

55. Plaintiffs’ motion sought to add Gyroor, Urbanmax. Fengchi-US, HGSM, 

Gaodeshang-US and Gyroshoes as defendants. (Dkt. 227-3.)

56. The Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion to amend on May 24, 2021. (Dkt. 253.)

57. On June 18, 2021, Defendants Fengchi-US and Urbanmax moved to clarify or 

vacate the 2020 Preliminary Injunction. (Dkt. 297.) The Court denied the motion on August 9, 

2021. (Dkt. 359.) On September 2, 2021, Fengchi-US and Urbanmax filed a notice of appeal. 

(Dkt. 407.)

58. On August 9, 2021, Defendant Gyroor-US moved to dissolve the 2020 

Preliminary Injunction challenging the adequacy of notice before the injunction was issued. (Dkt. 

353.) The Court denied the motion on August 24, 2021. (Dkt. 380.) On August 28, 2021, 

Gyroor-US filed a notice of appeal. (Dkt. 401.)

59. In the interim, Plaintiffs filed a new motion for preliminary injunction on August 

24, 2021 to enjoin the defendants added to Schedule A. (Dkt. 384.) The Court granted and 

entered the preliminary injunction order on October 14, 2021. (Dkt. 456.)

60. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit “vacate[d] 

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.” ABC Corp. I v. P’ship & Unincorporated Associations Identified 

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

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 636 Filed: 01/25/23 Page 36 of 38 PageID #:16214
37

61. On November 9, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a renewed motion for a preliminary 

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

motion on the ground that Defendants’ defense had “substantial merit.” (Dkt. 619, 626.)

62. On July 19, 2021, Defendant Gyroor-US filed a motion for summary judgment of 

non-infringement of the Patents-in-Suit by Accused Product, Gyroor A. (Dkt. 334.) Defendant 

Gyroor-US’s motion was based on only three facts (Dkt. 346) and the assertion that “the 

Accused Product is based on a valid U.S. Design Patent D808,857, which Defendant is

authorized to use.” (Dkt. 334 at 1.)

63. The Court denied the motion for summary judgment on October 6, 2021 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)).)

Dated: January 25, 2023 Respectfully submitted,

TARTER KRINSKY & DROGIN LLP

By: /s/ Richard J.L. Lomuscio

PALMERSHEIM & MATHEW LLP

Robert J. Palmersheim

Anand C. Mathew

Timothy G. Parilla

401 N. Franklin Street, Suite 4S 

Chicago, IL 60654

Tel.: (312) 319-1791

E-mail: acm@thepmlawfirm.com 

E-mail: rjp@thepmlawfirm.com

E-mail: tgp@thepmlawfirm.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 #: 636 Filed: 01/25/23 Page 37 of 38 PageID #:16215
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on January 25, 2023, I electronically filed the above document with 

the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system which will send electronic notification of such 

filing(s) to all registered counsel. 

By: /s/ Richard J.L. Lomuscio

Richard J.L. Lomuscio

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 636 Filed: 01/25/23 Page 38 of 38 PageID #:16216