1 

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-04806 

Honorable Thomas M. Durkin 

Magistrate Judge Jeffrey Cole 

ANSWER TO DEFENDANT GYROOR’S AMENDED COUNTERCLAIMS 

Plaintiffs/Counterclaim Defendants Hangzhou Chic Intelligent Technology Co. and 

Unicorn Global, Inc. (“Plaintiffs”), by and through its attorneys, Loeb & Loeb LLP, answer 

Defendant Gyroor’s (‘Defendant”) counterclaims as follows: 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

1. These are Counterclaims brought by Defendant/Counterclaimant Gyroor 

(“Counter-Claimant”), against Plaintiffs/Counter-Defendants Hangzhou Chic Intelligent 

Technology Co., Ltd., and Unicorn Global, Inc. (collectively “Counter-Defendants”) for 

declaratory judgment that U.S. Patent Nos. D737,723, D738,256, D785,112, and D784,195 

(collectively “the Patents-in-Suit”) are not infringed, either directly or indirectly by inducement, 

by Counter-Claimant’s use, manufacture, sale, and offer for sale of products and technology as 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 488 Filed: 12/17/21 Page 1 of 28 PageID #:13377
2 

identified in the Third Amended Complaint and for violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act (15 

U.S.C. § 2). 

ANSWER: Admitted that Defendant has attempted to bring counterclaims against 

Plaintiffs for declaratory judgment of non-infringement and for violation of § 2 of the Sherman 

Act. Plaintiffs otherwise deny any allegation in which Defendant claims to have not infringed 

Plaintiffs’ patents. 

2. Court II of the Counterclaims arises under the antitrust laws of the United States, 

specifically Section 4 and 16 of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. §§ 15, 26) for violation of Section of 

the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. § 2) in that the Counter-Defendants attempted to monopolize the 

market for hoverboard through: (a) Counter-Defendant wrongful enforcement of patents from the 

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO” or “PTO”) against Counter-Claimant and other 

competitors of Counter-Defendant; (b) Counter-Defendants’ sham litigation against 

Counterclaimant and other competitors, asserting objectively baseless claims to enforce patents 

known to be not infringed with the intent to directly interfere with and adversely affect the business 

operations of Counterclaimants and other competitors and thereby monopolize the U.S. and world 

markets for hoverboard. 

ANSWER: Admitted that Defendant attempts to bring Count II of its counterclaims under 

§ 2 of the Sherman Act. Denied as to the remaining allegations. 

3. This Court has jurisdiction over these Counterclaims under the federal question 

jurisdiction of this Court, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a), 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), the 

Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201-2202, the patent laws, 35 U.S.C. § 1, et seq., and 

under Rule 13 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Counter-Defendants have also committed 

acts violating the U.S. antitrust laws in this state and district, and the impact of those violations 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 488 Filed: 12/17/21 Page 2 of 28 PageID #:13378
3 

will have substantial lessening of competition in the relevant market for hoverboard in this district. 

Moreover, Counter-Defendants’ acts both within and without this district, have resulted in injury 

to Counter-Claimant’s business and property in this state and district and have inflicted substantial 

and irreparable damages to Counter-Claimant’s business, revenues, and profits arising from 

activities within this district. 

ANSWER: Admitted that the Court has federal question jurisdiction over Defendant’s 

counterclaims under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a), and 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). Denied as 

to the remaining allegations. 

4. Venue in this district is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b), in that this case is 

an action for patent infringement arising under the patent laws of the United States and pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and (c), as Counter-Defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction of this 

Court having commenced its action in this Court. 

ANSWER: Admitted that venue in this district is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b). 

THE PARTIES 

5. Defendant/Counter-Claimant is Shenzhen Chetaidou Keji Youxian Gongsi 

(“Chetaidou”), a Chinese company with its principal place of business in China. 

ANSWER: Plaintiffs are without sufficient knowledge or information so as to form a 

belief as to the truth of the allegations and therefore deny the same. 

6. Defendant/Counter-Claimant owns an internet storefront and website that its uses 

to sell its Gyroor Brand hoverboards, incorporated with its own intellectual properties, including 

but not limited to U.S. Design Patents. 

ANSWER: Denied. 

7. One of the Plaintiffs/Counter-Defendants Hangzhou Chic Intelligent Technology 

Co., Ltd. (“Hangzhou”) is a Chinese company that manufactures and licenses hoverboard products 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 488 Filed: 12/17/21 Page 3 of 28 PageID #:13379
4 

for sale in the United States. Chic is located in the Liangzhou University Science and Technology 

Park, Yuhang District, Hangzhou, China. 

ANSWER: Admitted. 

8. One of the Plaintiffs/Counter-Defendants Unicorn is a corporation organized and 

existing under the laws of the State of California, having its principal place of business in the 

Ontario, California. Unicorn is the exclusive U.S. distributor of Plaintiffs’ Products. 

ANSWER: Admitted. 

COUNT I 

Declaratory Judgment of Noninfringement 

9. The hoverboard market is a rapidly growing industry. Both Counter-Defendants 

Hangzhou Chic Intelligent Technology Co. Ltd. (“Chic”) and Unicorn Global, Inc (“Unicorn,” 

together “ Counter-Defendants”) and Defendant are in the business of selling hoverboards.

ANSWER: Admitted that Plaintiffs and Defendant are in the business of selling 

hoverboards. Denied as to the remainder. 

10. Counter-Defendants are notoriously known for bringing baseless infringement 

claims against competitors to gain market monopoly. 

ANSWER: Denied. 

11. Counter-Defendants have made numerous attempts to enforce meritless patent 

infringement claims against their competitors. For instance, in one of Counter-Defendants’ attempt 

to enforce meritless patent infringement claims against their competitors, the defendant/competitor 

contended that “Plaintiffs have taken an ‘any means necessary’ approach to ensure their 

competitors are off the market.” (Introduction Statement by another hoverboard seller - GoLabs, 

Inc. Case No. 3:19-cv-00754 (TXND), Dkt. No. 39, p. 1.) 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 488 Filed: 12/17/21 Page 4 of 28 PageID #:13380
5 

ANSWER: Denied. 

12. Shenzhen Chetaidou Keji Youxian Gongsi (“Chetaidou” or “Counter-Claimant”), 

the owner of the Gyroor Brand, takes intellectual property protection very seriously. It has 

dedicated significant resources to developing its products, branding, proprietary designs, and 

inventions. As will be demonstrated, every Gyroor product involved here is based on a valid U.S. 

patent.

ANSWER: Denied 

13. Initially, Counter-Defendants allege that ASIN - B07S4KXRQR sold by CounterClaimant Gyroor has infringed Counter-Defendants’ design patents [Dkt. No. 227; 227-1, ¶15; 

227-3]. The accused product is also identified by Counter-Defendants as “Gyroor B.” (“Gyroor 

Product B”) [Dkt. No. 385, pp. 19-20, Dkt. No. 385, pp. 19-20]. Chetaidou, the owner of 

Defendant, ceased selling the Gyroor Product B immediately after it was added as a defendant 

pursuant to the Court Order on May 24, 2021. [Dkt. No. 253]. 

Gyroor Product 

B (Multiple 

colors) 

ASIN - 

B07S4KXRQR [Dkt. 

No. 227; 227-3; 

227-1, p.47/92]

ANSWER: Denied. 

14. However, at the time of applying for the Second Preliminary Injunction, CounterDefendants added new allegations against Counter-Claimant, without amending their Complaint, 

and claim that three other products – identified as “Gyroor A,” “Gyroor C” and “Gyroor D” [Dkt. 

No. 385, pp. 19-20, Dkt. No. 385, pp. 19-20] (collectively, “Gyroor Products”). 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 488 Filed: 12/17/21 Page 5 of 28 PageID #:13381
6 

ANSWER: Denied that Plaintiffs added new allegations against Defendant. 

15. This lawsuit is objectively baseless and subjectively motivated by bad faith. 

Counter-Defendants have filed and maintained the lawsuit not because they have a reasonable 

chance of prevailing on the merits, but because they hope to use the lawsuit as an anticompetitive 

weapon against Gyroor brand. 

ANSWER: Denied. 

16. Evidence provided by Counter-Defendants identifies the alleged infringing 

products (“Gyroor Product B”) as “Gyroor G2 Hoverboard 8.5” Off Road All Terrain Off Road 

Hoverboard with Bluet[]ooth Speakers and LED Lights, UL2272 Certified Self Balancing Scooter” 

[Dkt. No. 227-1, p. 47 of 92]. The Gyroor B has a unique ASIN number B07S4KXRQR. [Dkt. No. 

227-1, p. 49 of 92; 227-3, p. 4 of 4]. 

ANSWER: Admitted that Plaintiffs have identified this unique ASIN number, among 

others. 

17. In the most recent landmark case Lanard Toys, Ltd. v. Dolgencorp LLC, 958 F.3d 

1337 (Fed. Cir 2020), the Feder[al] Circuit prescribe[d] that: 

[T]he ordinary observer is deemed to view the differences between the 

patented design and the accused product in the context of the prior art. When the 

differences between the claimed and accused design are viewed in light of the prior 

art, the attention of the hypothetical ordinary observer will be drawn to those aspects 

of the claimed design that differ from the prior art. And when the claimed design is 

close to the prior art designs, small differences between the accused design and the 

claimed design are likely to be important to the eye of the hypothetical ordinary 

observer.” Id. (quoting Egyptian Goddess, 543 F.3d at 676). 

ANSWER: Admitted that this allegation discloses a partial quote with Defendant’s 

emphasis selected from Lanard Toys, Ltd. v. Dolgencorp LLC, 958 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir 2020). 

Plaintiffs deny the remaining allegations of the paragraph. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 488 Filed: 12/17/21 Page 6 of 28 PageID #:13382
7 

18. Gyroor Product B Here, because the Patents-in-Suit and the U.S. Design Patent 

D937,906 Patent (“D’906 Patent”) are very close in their overall hourglass shape, the differences 

between the Gyroor Product B and the Patents-in-Suit are important to the ordinary observer. In 

light of the prior art D’906 Patent, an ordinary observer will not find the Gyroor Product B and the 

Patents-in-Suit have substantially similar overall “hourglass” shape. 

ANSWER: Denied. 

19. This “hourglass” peripheral shape was first disclosed and claimed in the prior art 

— the U.S. Design Patent D739,906 Patent (“D’906 Patent” attached hereto as Exhibit 5). As 

shown below in Table 1, page 7, the Patents-in-Suit all have an hourglass shape with smooth curves 

similar to the D’906 patent. [Dkt. No. 376, Decl. of Rake, ¶¶53-56, 92, 98; Dkt. No. 377, Decl. of 

Gandy, ¶¶47, 53, 59, 64]. In contrast, Gyroor B has a more “angular body shape with sharp edges.” 

Id. 

ANSWER: Denied. 

20. The “revolutionary design” was already claimed in the prior art D’906 Patent. 

Counter-Defendants did not invent the hourglass shape of hoverboards. Therefore, in light of the 

D’906 Patent, an ordinary observer will find the Gyroor B has a substantially different overall shape 

from the Patents-in-Suit. 

Table 1 — Comparison of Overall Hourglass 

Shape 

Patent-in-Suit 

D’723 Patent 

Patent-in-Suit 

D’256 Patent 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 488 Filed: 12/17/21 Page 7 of 28 PageID #:13383
8 

Patent-in-Suit 

D’195 Patent 

Patent-in-Suit 

D’112 Patent 

Prior Art 

D’906 

Patent 

Gyroor Product B 

Substantially Similar 

Patent D’856 Patent 

Table 2 — Comparison of Overall Shape – 

Front View

Patent-in-Suit 

D’723 Patent 

Patent-in-Suit 

D’256 Patent 

Patent-in-Suit 

D’195 Patent 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 488 Filed: 12/17/21 Page 8 of 28 PageID #:13384
9 

Patent-in-Suit 

D’112 Patent 

Prior Art 

D’906 

Patent 

Gyroor Product B 

Substantially Similar 

Patent D’856 Patent 

ANSWER: Denied. 

21. Table 2 compares the front view of the prior art D‘906 Patent, the Patents-in-Suit 

and the Gyroor Product B. Both the prior art D‘906 Patent and the Patents-in-Suit have “a slightly 

raised convex contour, while the corresponding center portion of the top surface of the design of 

Gyroor “B” hoverboard is substantially flat and slightly recessed down below the opposing outer 

foot surfaces.” [Dkt. No. 377, Decl. of Gandy, ¶¶ 42, 47, 53, 64]. 

ANSWER: Denied. 

22. Therefore, in light of the D’906 Patent, an ordinary observer will find the Gyroor 

Product B has a substantially different overall shape from the Patents-in-Suit. 

ANSWER: Denied. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 488 Filed: 12/17/21 Page 9 of 28 PageID #:13385
10

23. Under the “ordinary observer” test, a court must consider the [“]ornamental features 

[of each element] and analyze how they impact the overall design.” Lanard, 958 F.3d at 1343-44 

(citing Richardson v. Stanley Works, Inc., 597 F.3d 1288, at 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2010)). 

ANSWER: Admitted that this allegation discloses a partial quote with Defendant’s 

emphasis selected from Lanard Toys, Ltd. v. Dolgencorp LLC, 958 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir 2020). 

24. “While the ‘ordinary observer’ test is not an element-by-element comparison,” it 

also does not ignore the reality that designs can, and often do, have both functional and ornamental 

aspects. Id. (citing Amini Innovation Corp. v. Anthony Cal., Inc., 439 F.3d 1365, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 

2006)). Analyzing the ornamental features is necessary to determine how the ornamental 

differences in each element would impact the ordinary observer’s perception of the overall designs. 

Id. 

ANSWER: Denied. 

25. The ornamental features of each element in the Gyroor Product B are based on the 

claimed design of the U.S. D808,856 Patent. 

ANSWER: Denied. 

26. An ordinary observer would consider the Gyroor Product B to be substantially 

similar to the D’856 Patent. [Dkt. No. 376, Decl. of Rake, ¶188]. In contrast, no ordinary observer 

would consider Gyroor Product B is substantially similar to the Patents-in-Suit because none of the 

Patent-in-Suit claimed any ornamental features of the Accused Product. 

ANSWER: Denied. 

27. First, none of the Patents-in-Suit claimed foot pad design of the Gyroor Product B. 

The shape and design of the foot pads of the Gyroor Product B are plainly different from the 

Patents-in-Suit. [Dkt. No. 377, Decl. of Gandy, ¶¶71, 77; Dkt. No. 376, Decl. of Rake, ¶¶117,125]. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 488 Filed: 12/17/21 Page 10 of 28 PageID #:13386
11

ANSWER: Denied. 

28. Here, D’723 and D’256 Patents both claim the design of straight divergent lines on 

the foot pads. Neither D’195 nor D’112 claims any designs of the foot pads. 

ANSWER: Denied. 

29. The D’856 Patent claimed unique patterns on the foot pads, which are plainly 

dissimilar from the designs of the Patents-in-Suit. The Gyroor Product B has identical foot pad 

design as D’856 Patent. 

Patent-in-Suit

D’723 Patent 

Patent-in-Suit

D’256 Patent 

Patent-inSuit D’195 

Patent

Patent-in-Suit

D’112 Patent 

Substantially Similar

Patent D’856 Patent 

Gyroor Product B 

ANSWER: Denied. 

30. Second, none of the Patents-in-Suit claimed the wheel covers design of the Gyroor 

Product B. The wheel covers of the Gyroor Product B are plainly different from the Patents-in-Suit. 

ANSWER: Denied. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 488 Filed: 12/17/21 Page 11 of 28 PageID #:13387
12

31. he Patents-in-Suit all have semi-circular wheel covers and extend over and cover 

the entire wheel. None of the Patent-in-Suit claimed the wheel covers design of the Gyroor Product 

B. 

ANSWER: Denied. 

32. The shape of the wheel covers in the Patent-in-Suit and the prior art D‘906 patent 

are both semi-circular, “while the wheel covers on the design of Gyroor ‘B’ hoverboard have 

opposing diagonally straight side edges a substantially flat top edge which curves outwardly. [Dkt. 

No. 377, Decl. of Gandy, ¶¶48, 60, 65]. Therefore, “even to the most casual observer, the 

differences are significant.” [Dkt. No. 376, Decl. of Rake, ¶¶122, 129, 135, 141]. 

Patents-inSuit D’723 

Patent

Patents-inSuit D’256 

Patent

Patents-inSuit D’195 

Patent

Patents-inSuit D’112 

Patent

Substantially Similar

Patent D’856 Patent 

Gyroor Product B 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 488 Filed: 12/17/21 Page 12 of 28 PageID #:13388
13

ANSWER: Denied. 

33. Third, none of the Patents-in-Suit claimed the light design of the Gyroor Product 

B. The position, shape, and size of the lights of the Gyroor Product B are also plainly different from 

the Patents-in-Suit. None of the Patent-in-Suit claimed the light design of the Gyroor Product B. 

ANSWER: Denied. 

34. Highlighted, the Patents-in-Suit all have different size and shape and are positioned 

differently on the front panel of the hoverboard. [Dkt. No. 376, Decl. of Rake, ¶¶ 93, 99, 105, 111]. 

ANSWER: Denied. 

35. The light design of the Gyroor Product B features thin narrow strips that curves up 

to the fenders, which is identical to the claimed design in the D’856 Patent. 

Patent-inSuit 

D’723 Patent 

Patent-inSuit 

D’256 Patent 

Patent-inSuit 

D’195 Patent 

Patent-inSuit 

D’112 Patent 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 488 Filed: 12/17/21 Page 13 of 28 PageID #:13389
14

Gyroor 

Product 

D 

Substantially 

Similar 

Patent D’297 

Patent 

ANSWER: Denied. 

36. “The Gestalt principles of visual perception teaches us that the eye is attracted to 

areas of high contrast.” [Dkt. No. 376, Decl. of Rake, ¶25]. Under the Figure-Ground principles, 

“some shapes or contours take a prominent role (figure) while others recede into the background 

(ground).” Id. at 26. 

ANSWER: Denied. 

37. Certain designs would be perceived as more dramatic and obvious. Here, the size, 

shape, and character of the lights, size and shape of the wheel covers, and the patterns of the foot 

pads would significantly impact the ordinary observer’s visual perception of the overall designs. 

[Dkt. No. 376, Decl. of Rake, ¶¶ ¶¶93, 99, 105, 111, 175-178]. As a result, the differences between 

the Patents-in-Suit and accused design take on greater significance to an ordinary observer. 

ANSWER: Denied. 

38. Consequently, an ordinary observer, taking into account the prior art, would not 

believe the accused design to be the same as the patented design. 

ANSWER: Denied. 

39. Because the Patents-in-Suit and the D’906 Patent are very close in their overall 

hourglass shape, the differences between the Gyroor Product B and the Patents-in-Suit are 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 488 Filed: 12/17/21 Page 14 of 28 PageID #:13390
15

important to the ordinary observer. In light of the prior art D’906 Patent, an ordinary observer will 

not find the Gyroor Product B and the Patents- in-Suit have substantially similar overall 

“hourglass” shape. 

ANSWER: Denied. 

40. The application of the D’906 Patent was effectively filed before the effective filing 

date of the Patents-in- Suit. Therefore, D’906 Patent is prior art to all Patents-in-Suit. 

ANSWER: Denied. 

41. The “revolutionary design” was already claimed in the prior art D’906 Patent. 

Plaintiffs did not invent the hourglass shape of hoverboards. Therefore, in light of the D’906 Patent, 

an ordinary observer will find the Gyroor Product B has a substantially different overall shape 

from the Patents-in-Suit. 

ANSWER: Denied. 

42. Furthermore, in light of the D’906 Patent, an ordinary observer will find the Gyroor 

Product B has a substantially different overall shape from the Patents-in-Suit. 

ANSWER: Denied. 

43. Gy[r]oor Product A The ornamental features of each element in the Gyroor 

Product A are based on the claimed design of the U.S. D808,857 Patent. An ordinary observer 

would consider the Gyroor Product A to be substantially similar to the D’857 Patent. [Dkt. No. 

376, Decl. of Rake, ¶187]. 

ANSWER: Denied. 

44. In contrast, no ordinary observer would consider Gyroor Product A is substantially 

similar to the Patents- in-Suit because none of the Patent-in-Suit claimed any ornamental features 

of the Gyroor Product A. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 488 Filed: 12/17/21 Page 15 of 28 PageID #:13391
16

ANSWER: Denied. 

45. First, none of the Patents-in-Suit claimed foot pad design of the Gyroor Product A. 

The shape and design of the foot pads of the Gyroor Product A are plainly different from the 

Patents-in-Suit. [Dkt. No. 377, Decl. of Gandy, ¶¶ 27, 33; Dkt. No. 376, Decl. of Rake, ¶¶63,77]. 

ANSWER: Denied. 

46. Here, D’723 and D’256 Patents both claim the design of straight divergent lines on 

the foot pads. Neither D’195 nor D’112 claims any designs of the foot pads. 

ANSWER: Denied. 

47. The D’857 Patent claimed unique curved lines on the foot pads, which are plainly 

dissimilar from the designs of the Patents-in-Suit. The Accused Product has identical foot pad 

design as D’857 Patent. 

Patent-in-Suit D’723 Patent Patent-in-Suit D’256 Patent Patent-in-Suit D’195 Patent

Patent-in-Suit D’112 Patent Substantially Similar Patent D’857

Patent

Gyroor Product A 

ANSWER: Denied. 

48. Second, none of the Patents-in-Suit claimed the wheel covers design of the Gyroor 

Product A. The wheel covers of the Gyroor Product A are plainly different from the Patents-inSuit. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 488 Filed: 12/17/21 Page 16 of 28 PageID #:13392
17

ANSWER: Denied. 

49. The Patents-in-Suit all have semi-circular wheel covers and extend over and cover 

the entire wheel. None of the Patent-in-Suit claimed the wheel covers design of the Gyroor Product 

A. 

ANSWER: Denied. 

50. The shape of the wheel covers in the Patens-in-Suit and the prior art D‘906 patent 

are both semi-circular, “while the wheel covers on the design of the Gyroor “A” hoverboard are 

somewhat squared off.” [Dkt. No. 377, Decl. of Gandy, ¶¶26, 32, 38, 43]. 

ANSWER: Denied. 

51. Therefore, “even to the most casual observer, the differences are significant.” [Dkt. 

No. 376, Decl. of Rake, ¶¶68, 75, 81, 87]. 

Patent-in-SuitD’723 Patent Patent-in-SuitD’256 Patent Patent-in-SuitD’195 Patent

Patent-in-SuitD’112 Patent Prior Art D’906 Patent Gyroor Product A

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 488 Filed: 12/17/21 Page 17 of 28 PageID #:13393
18

ANSWER: Denied. 

52. Third, none of the Patents-in-Suit claimed the light design of the Gyroor Product A. 

The position, shape, and size of the lights of the Gyroor Product A are also plainly different from 

the Patents-in-Suit. None of the Patent-in-Suit claimed the wheel covers design of the Gyroor 

Product A. 

ANSWER: Denied. 

53. Highlighted, the Patents-in-Suit all have different size and shape and are positioned 

differently on the front panel of the hoverboard. [Dkt. No. 376, Decl. of Rake, ¶¶ 66, 72, 78, 84]. 

ANSWER: Denied. 

54. The light design of the Gyroor Product A features thin narrow straight strips lights, 

which is identical to the claimed design in the D’856 Patent. 

Patent-inSuit 

D’723 Patent 

Patent-inSuit 

D’256 Patent 

Patent-inSuit 

D’195 Patent 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 488 Filed: 12/17/21 Page 18 of 28 PageID #:13394
19

Patent-inSuit 

D’112 Patent 

Gyroor 

Product 

D 

Substantially 

Similar 

Patent D’297 

Patent 

ANSWER: Denied. 

55. Gyroor Product C The ornamental features of each element in the Gyroor Product 

Care based on the claimed design of the U.S. D808,857 Patent. An ordinary observer would 

consider the Gyroor Product to be substantially similar to the D’857 Patent. [Dkt. No. 376, Decl. 

of Rake, ¶187]. 

ANSWER: Denied. 

56. In contrast, no ordinary observer would consider Gyroor Product Cis substantially 

similar to the Patents-in- Suit because none of the Patent-in-Suit claimed any ornamental features 

of the Gyroor Product C. 

ANSWER: Denied. 

57. First, none of the Patents-in-Suit claimed foot pad design of the Gyroor Product C. 

The shape and design of the foot pads of the Gyroor Product Care plainly different from the 

Patents-in-Suit. [Dkt. No. 377, Decl. of Gandy, ¶¶71, 77; Dkt. No. 376, Decl. of Rake, ¶¶117,125]. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 488 Filed: 12/17/21 Page 19 of 28 PageID #:13395
20

ANSWER: Denied. 

58. Here, D’723 and D’256 Patents both claim the design of straight divergent lines on 

the foot pads. Neither D’195 nor D’112 claims any designs of the foot pads. 

ANSWER: Denied. 

59. The D’857 Patent claimed unique curved lines on the foot pads, which are plainly 

dissimilar from the designs of the Patents-in-Suit. The Gyroor Product Chas identical foot pad 

design as D’857 Patent. 

Patent-in-Suit 

D’723 Patent

Patent-in-Suit 

D’256 Patent

Patent-in-Suit D’195 Patent

Patent-in-Suit 

D’112 Patent

Substantially Similar

Patent D’857 Patent

Gyroor Product C 

ANSWER: Denied. 

60. Second, none of the Patents-in-Suit claimed the wheel covers design of the Gyroor 

Product C. The wheel covers of the Gyroor Product C are plainly different from the Patents-in-Suit. 

ANSWER: Denied. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 488 Filed: 12/17/21 Page 20 of 28 PageID #:13396
21

61. The Patents-in-Suit all have semi-circular wheel covers and extend over and cover 

the entire wheel. None of the Patent-in-Suit claimed the wheel covers design of the Gyroor Product 

C. 

ANSWER: Denied. 

62. The shape of the wheel covers in the Patents-in-Suit and the prior art D‘906 patent 

are both semi-circular, “while the wheel covers on the design of Gyroor ‘C’ hoverboard do not 

extend down over the wheel” as in ‘723 and ‘195 Patent, and “are wider than those of the design” 

of the ‘256 and’112 patent. [Dkt. No. 377, Decl. of Gandy, ¶¶70, 76, 82, 87]. 

ANSWER: Denied. 

63. Therefore, “even to the most casual observer, the differences are significant.” [Dkt. 

No. 376, Decl. of Rake, ¶¶122, 129, 135, 141]. 

Patent-in-Suit

D’723 Patent

Patent-in-Suit

D’256 Patent

Patent-in-Suit 

D’195 Patent

Patents-inSuit D’112 

Patent

Prior Aart

D’906 

Patent 

Gyroor Product C 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 488 Filed: 12/17/21 Page 21 of 28 PageID #:13397
22

ANSWER: Denied. 

64. Third, none of the Patents-in-Suit claimed the light design of the Gyroor Product C. 

The position, shape, and size of the lights of the Gyroor Product C are also plainly different from 

the Patents-in-Suit. None of the Patent-in-Suit claimed the light design of the Gyroor Product C. 

ANSWER: Denied. 

65. Highlighted, the Patents-in-Suit all have different size and shape and are positioned 

differently on the front panel of the hoverboard. [Dkt. No. 376, Decl. of Rake, ¶¶ 120, 126, 132, 

138]. 

ANSWER: Denied. 

66. The light design of the Gyroor Product C features the thin narrow straight strips 

lights, which is identical to the claimed design in the D’857 Patent. 

Patent-in-Suit 

D’723 Patent 

Patent-in-Suit 

D’256 Patent 

Patent-in-Suit 

D’195 Patent 

Patent-in-Suit 

D’112 Patent 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 488 Filed: 12/17/21 Page 22 of 28 PageID #:13398
23

Gyroor Product C 

Substantially 

Similar Patent 

D’857 Patent 

ANSWER: Denied. 

67. Gyroor Product D The ornamental features of each element in the Gyroor Product 

D are based on the claimed design of the U.S. D891,297 Patent (“D’297 Patent,” attached hereto 

as Exhibit 10). An ordinary observer would consider the Gyroor Product D to be substantially 

similar to the D’297 Patent. [Dkt. No. 376, Decl. of Rake, ¶189].. 

ANSWER: Denied. 

68. In contrast, no ordinary observer would consider Gyroor Product D is substantially 

similar to the Patents-in-Suit because none of the Patent-in-Suit claimed any ornamental features 

of the Gyroor Product D. 

ANSWER: Denied. 

69. First, none of the Patents-in-Suit claimed foot pad design of the Gyroor Product D. 

The shape and design of the foot pads of the Gyroor Product Are plainly different from the Patentsin-Suit. [Dkt. No. 377, Decl. of Gandy, ¶¶93, 99; Dkt. No. 376, Decl. of Rake, ¶¶146, 152, 158, 

164]. 

ANSWER: Denied. 

70. Here, D’723 and D’256 Patents both claim the design of straight divergent lines on 

the food pads. Neither D’195 nor D’112 claims any designs of the foot pads. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 488 Filed: 12/17/21 Page 23 of 28 PageID #:13399
24

ANSWER: Denied. 

71. The D’297 Patent claimed unique three parallel lines and other intricate patterns on 

the foot pads, which are plainly dissimilar from the designs of the Patents-in-Suit. The Gyroor 

Product D has identical foot pad design as D’297 Patent. 

Patent-in-Suit

D’723 Patent 

Patent-in-Suit 

D’256 Patent 

Patent-inSuit D’195 

Patent

Patent-in-Suit 

D’112 Patent

Substantially Similar 

Patent D’297 Patent

Gyroor Product D 

ANSWER: Denied. 

72. Second, none of the Patents-in-Suit claimed the wheel covers design of the Gyroor 

Product D. The wheel covers of the Gyroor Product Are plainly different from the Patents-in-Suit. 

ANSWER: Denied. 

73. The Patents-in-Suit all have semi-circular wheel covers and extend over and cover 

the entire wheel. None of the Patent-in-Suit claimed the wheel covers design of the Gyroor Product 

D. 

ANSWER: Denied. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 488 Filed: 12/17/21 Page 24 of 28 PageID #:13400
25

74. The shape of the wheel covers in the Patents-in-Suit and the prior art D‘906 patent 

are both semi-circular, “while the wheel covers on the design of Gyroor “D” hoverboard have 

opposing diagonally straight side edges a substantially flat top edge which curves outwardly but 

does not extend over the entire wheel.” [Dkt. No. 377, Decl. of Gandy, ¶¶92, 98, 103, 108]. 

ANSWER: Denied. 

75. Therefore, “even to the most casual observer, the differences are significant.”[Dkt. 

No. 376, Decl. of Rake, ¶¶150, 156, 162, 168]. 

Patent-in-Suit

D’723 Patent 

Patent-in-Suit

D’256 Patent 

Patent-in-Suit

D’195 Patent 

Patent-in-Suit

D’112 Patent 

Substantially Similar Patent

D’297 Patent 

Gyroor Product D

ANSWER: Denied. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 488 Filed: 12/17/21 Page 25 of 28 PageID #:13401
26

76. Third, none of the Patents-in-Suit claimed the light design of the Gyroor Product D. 

The position, shape, and size of the lights of the Gyroor Product D are also plainly different from 

the Patents-in-Suit. None of the Patent-in-Suit claimed the light design of the Gyroor Product D. 

ANSWER: Denied. 

77. Highlighted, the Patents-in-Suit all have different size and shape and are positioned 

differently on the front panel of the hoverboard. [Dkt. No. 376, Decl. of Rake, ¶¶147, 153, 159, 

165]. 

ANSWER: Denied. 

78. The light design of the Gyroor Product D features thin narrow strips, which is 

identical to the claimed design in the D’856 Patent. 

Patent-inSuit 

D’723 Patent 

Patent-inSuit 

D’256 Patent 

Patent-inSuit 

D’195 Patent 

Patent-inSuit 

D’112 Patent 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 488 Filed: 12/17/21 Page 26 of 28 PageID #:13402
27

Gyroor 

Product 

D 

Substantially 

Similar 

Patent D’297 

Patent 

ANSWER: Denied. 

79. Under the Gestalt Test, the size, shape, and character of the lights, size and shape 

of the wheel covers, and the patterns of the foot pads would significantly impact the ordinary 

observer's visual perception of the overall designs. [Dkt. No. 376, Decl. of Rake, ¶¶66, 72, 78, 84, 

171-174 for Gyroor Product A; ¶¶120, 126, 132, 138, 179-182 for Gyroor Product C ; ¶¶147, 153, 

159, 165, 183-186 for Gyroor Product D]. As a result, the differences between the Patents-in-Suit 

and accused design take on greater significance to an ordinary observer. 

ANSWER: Denied. 

80. Consequently, an ordinary observer, taking into account the prior art, would not 

believe the Gyroor Product A, C and D to be the same as the patented design. Id. 

ANSWER: Denied. 

81. Counter-Defendants’ willingness to grant a license is apparent in this case. Aside 

from granting other patents to Counter-Claimant previously, Counter-Defendants’ counsel has 

approached Counter-Claimant’s prior counsel and offered to “send over a license agreement” of 

the Patents-in-Suit [Dkt No. 391, p. 4]. 

ANSWER: Denied. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 488 Filed: 12/17/21 Page 27 of 28 PageID #:13403
28

COUNT II 

Violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act – Monopolization of the 

U.S. Market for hoverboards 

ANSWER: Because Plaintiffs have moved to dismiss Count II under Rule 12(b)(6), no 

answers to the allegations of Count II are required under Rule 12(a)(4). Plaintiffs therefore 

expressly do not answer the allegations of Count II, instead reserving their right to answer the 

allegations of Count II if necessary after resolution of the pending motion to dismiss 

Dated: December 17, 2021 Respectfully submitted, 

By: /s/ Marwa Abdelaziz 

Adam Kelly 

Douglas Masters 

Arthur Yuan 

Neil Nandi 

321 North Clark Street, Suite 2300 

Chicago, Illinois 60654 

Tel.: 312-464-3100 

Fax: 312-464-3111 

Email: akelly@loeb.com

Email: dmasters@loeb.com

Email: ayuan@loeb.com

Email: nnandi@loeb.com

Marwa Abdelaziz (admitted pro hac vice) 

LOEB & LOEB LLP 

345 Park Avenue 

New York, New York 10154 

Tel.: (212) 407-4388 

Fax: (212) 407-4990 

Email: mabdelaziz@loeb.com

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 488 Filed: 12/17/21 Page 28 of 28 PageID #:13404