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. 20-cv-4806 

Judge Thomas M. Durkin 

Magistrate Judge Jeffrey Cole 

PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT JIANGYOU-US’S 

MOTION TO DISMISS 

Although Jiangyou-US is one of eight related entities in this case that have worked in 

concert to infringe Plaintiffs’ patents by selling Gyroor-branded products, only Jiangyou-US 

contests personal jurisdiction. And its basis for doing so is unpersuasive. Jiangyou-US operates 

an e-commerce store that offers products for sale to customers in Illinois, offers to ship the products 

to customers in Illinois, and did sell products to customers in Illinois. Yet, the only evidence 

Jiangyou-US offers in support of its motion is a largely irrelevant, wholly conclusory declaration 

that lacks any corroborating support. (See Dkt. 363 & 363-1). In response, Plaintiffs are presenting 

further evidence proving that residents of this District can purchase a Jiangyou-US infringing 

product for shipment to this District. Accordingly, because Plaintiffs have established a prima 

facie case of personal jurisdiction, this Court should deny Jiangyou-US’s motion. 

RELEVANT FACTS

Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint sets forth allegations establishing a prima facie case 

for personal jurisdiction in this District. The defendants in this case are Chinese e-commerce stores 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 412 Filed: 09/03/21 Page 1 of 11 PageID #:9852
 2 

that sell hoverboards that infringe Plaintiffs’ Patents-in-Suit. See Dkt. 101, ¶¶ 9, 27. JiangyouUS is an Amazon storefront selling Gyroor-branded products, in connection with defendant 

Gyroor-US. See Dkt. 227-1, ¶ 6. As such, Jiangyou-US is one of a network of interrelated foreign 

companies that knowingly and intentionally sell infringing products and that use the anonymity 

provided by the internet to evade liability for patent infringement. See Dkt. 101, ¶ 13. JiangyouUS “directly targets business activities towards consumers in the United States, including Illinois, 

through at least the fully interactive, e-commerce stores.” Id., ¶ 5; see also id., ¶ 29 (defendants 

have “targeted sales to Illinois residents by setting up and operating e-commerce stores”). 

 In response, Jiangyou-US has submitted a brief and conclusory declaration that is 

supported by absolutely no corroborating documents. See Dkt. 363-1. Oddly, the declaration is 

submitted by Jiangyou-US’s claimed “legal representative.” Id., ¶ 1. But the declaration is based 

solely on “I” statements, i.e., the declarant’s statements are limited to his own individual actions—

not the actions of the company as a whole. Regardless, the declaration offers few relevant facts. 

The declarant never denies that he or Jiangyou-US targeted sales to Illinois residents or made 

products available for purchase to Illinois residents. The declarant does curtly state: “I never sold 

any allegedly infringing product to anyone in Illinois.” Id., ¶ 16. But the declarant never defines 

“infringing product,” thereby obscuring whether the declarant is truly claiming that Jiangyou-US 

never sold any hoverboard product to an Illinois customer for which Plaintiffs could arguably 

claim damages. 

By contrast, Plaintiffs submit a declaration supported by corroborating documentation 

establishing that Jiangyou-US has been selling infringing products on Amazon since at least 

October 25, 2020. See Ex. 1 (Declaration of Arthur Yuan), ¶ 3. Relevant to this District, JiangyouUS has offered these infringing products to Illinois residents. Id. And Jiangyou-US continues to 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 412 Filed: 09/03/21 Page 2 of 11 PageID #:9853
 3 

offer infringing products to Illinois customers. For example, on August 4, the Jiangyou-US 

Amazon page expressly indicated that the product would ship to the Chicago-based zip code 

60605. Id., ¶¶ 4–5. Likewise, on August 15, Jiangyou-US’s Amazon page continued to offer 

infringing products for sale, with availability to ship to 60654. Id., ¶¶ 6–8. In fact, one of 

Plaintiffs’ attorneys successfully purchased such a product for shipment to this District. Id., ¶ 8. 

ARGUMENT 

Although Federal Circuit law applies to personal jurisdiction in patent cases, the Court 

must ultimately evaluate personal jurisdiction under the Illinois long-arm statute. See uBID, Inc. 

v. GoDaddy Grp., Inc., 623 F.3d 421, 425 (7th Cir. 2010). Interpreting Illinois and federal 

constitutional law, the Seventh Circuit has held that specific personal jurisdiction exists when 

three conditions are satisfied: 

First, the defendant’s contacts with the forum state must show that it purposefully 

availed itself of the privilege of conducting business in the forum state or 

purposefully directed its activities at the state. Second, the plaintiff’s alleged injury 

must have arisen out of the defendant’s forum-related activities. And finally, any 

exercise of personal jurisdiction must comport with traditional notions of fair play 

and substantial justice. 

Curry v. Revolution Labs., LLC, 949 F.3d 385, 398 (7th Cir. 2020) (alterations adopted, quotation 

omitted). A plaintiff “bears only the burden of making a prima facie case for personal jurisdiction.” 

Id. at 393. In evaluating whether the plaintiff met this standard, the Court must resolve all factual 

disputes in the plaintiff’s favor. See id. 

 Here, the facts demonstrate that Jiangyou-US worked seamlessly with the other Gyroor 

Defendants to offer infringing products for sale to residents of this District. This offering for 

sale—which itself is an act of patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a)—was targeted to this 

District and is sufficient to establish minimum contacts. The effect of the patent infringement was 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 412 Filed: 09/03/21 Page 3 of 11 PageID #:9854
 4 

thus felt in this District. Finally, substantial justice requires keeping Jiangyou-US in this matter, 

where it can be held accountable for its infringement along with the rest of the Gyroor Defendants. 

Jiangyou-US Purposefully Availed Itself of the Illinois Forum 

The purposeful availment element ensures that the defendant’s contacts with the forum 

are not “random, fortuitous, or attenuated.” Curry, 949 F.3d at 798. Instead, the defendant must 

have “purposefully directed” its activities to the forum by, for example, “caus[ing] its product to 

be distributed in the forum state.” Id. Evidence of purposeful available establishes that the 

defendant had minimum contacts with the forum. See Illinois v. Hemi Grp. LLC, 622 F.3d 754, 

758 (7th Cir. 2010). 

Seventh Circuit Precedent Establishes the Existence of Personal Jurisdiction 

Over E-Commerce Sites Selling to Illinois Residents 

Minimum contacts sufficient to establish specific jurisdiction exist where defendants 

operate “commercial websites through which customers could purchase [goods], calculate their 

shipping charges using their zip codes, and create accounts.” Hemi, 622 F.3d at 757–58. For 

example, the Seventh Circuit recently examined the online sale of a sports nutritional supplement. 

See Curry, 949 F.3d at 385. The defendant, which had no physical presence in Illinois, marketed 

and sold its products to Illinois residents over the internet, including through third-party 

marketplaces like eBay and Amazon. Id. at 390. The court concluded that the defendant 

specifically targeted Illinois residents by requiring customers to provide a shipping address, with 

Illinois among the options. Once a customer from Illinois purchased the products, the defendant 

sent an email that confirmed both the order and the Illinois shipping address. Id. at 399. Thus, the 

defendant’s “own actions in establishing these commercial contacts with Illinois fairly can be 

described as purposeful.” Id. Moreover, the court noted that “[t]here is no per se requirement that 

the defendant especially target the forum in its business activity; it is sufficient that the defendant 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 412 Filed: 09/03/21 Page 4 of 11 PageID #:9855
 5 

reasonably could foresee that its product would be sold in the forum.” Id., citing Keeton v. Hustler 

Magazine, Inc., 465 U.S. 770, 781 (1984). 

Here, Jiangyou-US operates in substantially the same manner. It sells products on a thirdparty marketplace (i.e., Amazon), expressly stating the product’s availability to be shipped to zip 

codes in this District. See Ex. 1, ¶¶ 4–5. It too provides order confirmations that include the 

address of the customer. Id., ¶ 8. Under Curry, the Court therefore has personal jurisdiction over 

Jiangyou-US. See also Hemi, 622 F.3d at 758 (finding personal jurisdiction based on products 

offered online to Illinois residents, because “[i]t is Hemi reaching out to residents of Illinois, and 

not the residents reaching back, that creates the sufficient minimum contacts with Illinois that 

justify exercising personal jurisdiction over Hemi in Illinois”). 

The Contrary Authority on which Jiangyou-US Relies is Inapplicable 

The Seventh Circuit cases on which Jiangyou-US relies do not support its motion to 

dismiss. First, most of the cited Seventh Circuit authorities do not relate to claims arising from 

acts over e-commerce platforms. See Felland v. Clifton, 682 F.3d 665 (7th Cir. 2012) (intentional 

misrepresentation related to real estate contract); be2 LLC v. Ivanov, 642 F.3d 555 (7th Cir. 2011) 

(trademark infringement suit against free online dating website); Purdue Research Found. v. 

Sanofi-Synthelabo, S.A., 338 F.3d 773 (7th Cir. 2003) (breach of contract); Mobile 

Anesthesiologists Chi., LLC v. Anesthesia Assocs. of Houston Metroplex, P.A., 623 F.3d 440 (7th 

Cir. 2010) (anti-cybersquatting claim); GCIU-Employer Ret. Fund v. Goldfarb Corp., 565 F.3d 

1018 (7th Cir. 2009) (ERISA); RAR, Inc. v. Turner Diesel, 107 F.3d 1272 (7th Cir. 1997) (breach 

of contract relating to goods purchases in early 1990s); see also United Airlines, Inc. v. Zaman, 

152 F. Supp. 3d 1041, 1054 (N.D. Ill. 2015) (trademark infringement related to logo on flight 

booking cite, in which the court noted: “Also unlike the retailer in Hemi Group, Defendant does 

not ship any tangible products to residents in Illinois; rather, the company facilitates electronic 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 412 Filed: 09/03/21 Page 5 of 11 PageID #:9856
 6 

ticket purchases.”). As such—and unlike here, Hemi, and Curry—the defendants in those cases 

did not clearly offer products for sale to the Illinois forum or offer to ship products here. 

To be sure, the one cited Seventh Circuit case with some connection to e-commerce turned 

on the fact that the contacts with the forum state (Indiana, not Illinois) seemingly had nothing to 

do with the trademark infringement activity that was the subject of the litigation. See Advanced 

Tactical Ordnance Sys., LLC v. Real Action Paintball, Inc., 751 F.3d 796, 801 (7th Cir. 2014) 

(“Advanced Tactical provides no evidence that those sales had any connection with this 

litigation”). But here, unlike Advanced Tactical, Jiangyou-US specifically offered the infringing 

products for sale to Illinois residents for shipment to Illinois. Ex. 1, ¶ 3. 

Further, Jiangyou-US relies on out-of-circuit cases and a limited number of in-District 

cases finding no personal jurisdiction over foreign e-commerce vendors. But the bulk of authority 

in this District holds that personal jurisdiction is proper in this situation. For example, a published 

decision in a trademark infringement case against Chinese defendants selling on e-commerce sites 

emphasized the fact that the plaintiff’s claims were based, in part, on the offer to sell infringing 

products. See Monster Energy Co. v. Chen Wensheng, 136 F. Supp. 3d 897, 906 (N.D. Ill. 2015) 

(finding that it was not necessary for the plaintiff to prove that defendant ever made a sale in 

Illinois for the court to have personal jurisdiction, as the “claims against defendants are based on 

defendants’ offers to sell counterfeit Monster Energy products through their interactive Internet 

store, which allows online orders to be placed and shipped to Illinois addresses.”). Similarly, here, 

Plaintiffs’ claims are based, in part, on Jiangyou-US’s offers to sell infringing products in this 

District. See Dkt. 101, ¶¶ 42, 46, 50, 54. Therefore, specific jurisdiction exists over Jiangyou-US. 

Monster is hardly an outlier in this District’s recent e-commerce jurisprudence. See, e.g., 

CAMELBAK Prods., LLC, v. The P’ships and Unincorporated Ass’ns Identified on Schedule “A”, 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 412 Filed: 09/03/21 Page 6 of 11 PageID #:9857
 7 

Case No. 20-cv-01544, Dkt. 88, p. 2 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 16, 2020) (finding personal jurisdiction where 

the plaintiff presented “screenshot evidence” that “each Defendant Internet Store is reaching out 

to do business with Illinois residents by operating one or more commercial, interactive Internet 

Stores through which Illinois residents can and do purchase products using counterfeit versions of 

Plaintiff’s trademarks.”); Mori Lee, LLC v. The P’Ships and Unincorporated Ass’ns Identified on 

Schedule “A”, Case No. 19-cv-07555, Dkt. 60 (N.D. Ill. May 14, 2020) (citing Curry and stating: 

“Mori Lee has offered evidence tending to show that weddirect.co, though not physically located 

in Illinois or even in the [United] States, operated an interactive website through which it offered 

products for sale to consumers, including consumers located in Illinois, who would then select an 

address where the products should be shipped, including Illinois as one of the options. This is 

enough to amount to weddirect.co having purposefully availed itself of doing business in 

Illinois.”); Conair Corp. v. Chen, Case No. 16-cv-9693, Dkt. 69, p. 2 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 22, 2017) 

(finding personal jurisdiction based on an investigator’s purchase of infringing products with 

shipment ordered to Illinois, because the “attempted purchase by the fictitious consumer is 

evidence of [the defendant’s] intent to solicit Illinois consumers and purposefully avail itself of 

the privilege of conducting business in Illinois and attempting to sell its products to Illinois 

consumers”). 

Accordingly, under Seventh Circuit precedent, as applied in many cases in this District, 

Jiangyou-US’s actions directed to Illinois demonstrate that it purposefully availed itself of this 

District, thereby subjecting itself to personal jurisdiction before this Court. 

The Contacts of the Other Gyroor Defendants Should Be Attributed to 

Jiangyou-US for the Purposes of Personal Jurisdiction 

Unlike cases granting motions to dismiss based on lack of personal jurisdiction, JiangyouUS has not come forward with any other forum in which it should be haled into federal court. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 412 Filed: 09/03/21 Page 7 of 11 PageID #:9858
 8 

Compare Original Creations, Inc. v. Ready Am., Inc., 836 F. Supp. 2d 711, 713 (N.D. Ill. 2011) 

(California-based, Delaware-incorporated defendant). Further, Jiangyou-US is not some 

standalone party who would have to independently litigate these claims in isolation. Instead, 

Plaintiffs have introduced substantial evidence establishing that Jiangyou-US is closely related 

to—if not indistinguishable from—the rest of the parties still actively defending this suit, the socalled Gyroor Defendants. See Dkt. 227-1, ¶ 6; Dkt. 328, ¶¶ 21, 31, 39. In fact, Jiangyou-US

appeared in this matter through the same attorney appearance forms as other Gyroor Defendants 

which do not contest personal jurisdiction. See Dkt. 340, 342. The close relationship between 

Jiangyou-US and the other Gyroor Defendants—over which personal jurisdiction is indisputably 

proper—provides an independent basis to assert personal jurisdiction over Jiangyou-US. See 

Nuance Commc’ns., Inc. v. Abbyy Software House, 626 F.3d 1222, 1232–33 (Fed. Cir. 2010); cf.

Sys. Div., Inc. v. Teknek Elecs., Ltd., 253 F. App’x. 31, 37 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“The exercise of 

jurisdiction over an alter ego is compatible with due process because a corporation and its alter 

ego are the same entity—thus, the jurisdictional contacts of one are the jurisdictional contacts of 

the other for purposes of the International Shoe due process analysis.”) (unpub.). At minimum, 

these relationships set this case apart from those where the moving defendant would otherwise be 

proceeding in isolation in a forum foreign to the defendant. 

Plaintiffs Were Injured in Illinois as a Result of Jiangyou-US’s Actions 

Plaintiffs have alleged that Jiangyou-US sold goods in Illinois that infringe their patent 

rights. Dkt. 101, ¶ 27. The sale of infringing products necessarily injures the patent-holder. The 

location of the injury is the location in which the infringing item was sold, meaning that 

Defendant’s sale of the infringing wares to customers in Illinois caused injury to Plaintiffs in 

Illinois. See N. Am. Philips Corp. v. Am. Vending Sales, Inc., 35 F.3d 1576, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1994) 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 412 Filed: 09/03/21 Page 8 of 11 PageID #:9859
 9 

(“to sell an infringing article to a buyer in Illinois is to commit a tort there.”). Thus, Plaintiffs’ 

injuries have been directly caused by Jiangyou-US’s actions in Illinois. 

The Exercise of Personal Jurisdiction Here Comports with Traditional Notions of 

Fair Play and Substantial Justice 

Jiangyou-US has failed to show how subjecting it to jurisdiction in Illinois violates 

traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. In considering these factors, courts should: 

evaluate the burden on the defendant, the forum State’s interest in adjudicating the 

dispute, the plaintiff’s interest in obtaining convenient and effective relief, the 

interstate judicial system’s interest in obtaining the most efficient resolution of 

controversies, and the shared interest of the several States in furthering fundamental 

substantive social policies. 

Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 477 (1985) (quotations omitted). “[A]s long as 

the plaintiff has made a threshold showing of minimum contacts, that showing is generally 

defeated only where the defendant presents a compelling case that the presence of some other 

considerations would render jurisdiction unreasonable.” Curry, 949 F.3d at 402. Yet, JiangyouUS has made no such showing here. 

 Importantly, Jiangyou-US introduces no evidence suggesting that it would be burdensome 

to litigate here. In fact, its barebones declaration does not even address burden. Cf. Dkt. 363-1. 

As in Curry, there is no unfairness in subjecting Jiangyou-US to jurisdiction in Illinois, as it “has 

structured its marketing so that it can easily serve the state’s consumers—and it has done so” by 

selling goods to Illinois consumers. 949 F.3d at 402. Jiangyou-US holds itself out as conducting 

business nationwide, and thus the burden of requiring it to defend the lawsuit in Illinois is minimal. 

See id. Providing otherwise would allow Jiangyou-US to “[have] its cake and eat it, too” by 

allowing it the “benefit of a nationwide business model with none of the exposure.” Id. 

Additionally, the efficiencies of keeping this case in this District are substantial. JiangyouUS is part of a group of eight related Gyroor Defendants. See Dkt. 227-1, ¶ 6. “Closely related 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 412 Filed: 09/03/21 Page 9 of 11 PageID #:9860
 10 

claims should if possible be tried together to spare the parties and the American judicial system 

the diseconomies of multiple proceedings.” Harbor Ins. Co. v. Cont'l Bank Corp., 922 F.2d 357, 

361 (7th Cir. 1990). Jiangyou-US is part of a cabal of defendants who have flouted the preliminary 

injunction order in this case, which should have ceased the sales of infringing Gyroor-branded 

products. See Dkt. 328. Releasing Jiangyou-US from this case—despite Jiangyou-US clearly 

offering to sell infringing goods to residents of this District—only provides the Gyroor Defendants 

an outlet to attempt to evade the reach of this Court. The only way to efficiently hold JiangyouUS accountable for its infringement is by keeping it in this suit before this Court. 

Thus, notions of fair play and substantial justice strongly counsel in favor of denying 

Jiangyou-US’s motion to dismiss. 

CONCLUSION 

 Because Plaintiffs have established a prima facie showing that personal jurisdiction is 

proper over Jiangyou-US, the Court should deny the motion to dismiss. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 412 Filed: 09/03/21 Page 10 of 11 PageID #:9861
 11 

Date: September 3, 2021 Respectfully Submitted, 

LOEB & LOEB LLP 

 /s/ Adam Kelly 

Adam Kelly 

Doug Masters 

Arthur Yuan 

Neil Nandi 

321 North Clark Street, Suite 2300 

Chicago, Illinois 60654 

Tel.: 312-464-3100 

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) 407-4000 

Email: mabdelaziz@loeb.com 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 412 Filed: 09/03/21 Page 11 of 11 PageID #:9862