IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

HANGZHOU CHIC INTELLIGENT 

TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD., and UNICORN 

GLOBAL, INC.,

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

FILED UNDER SEAL

THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

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

Inc., (“Unicorn”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) bring this action against the Defendants identified in 

attached Schedule A (“Schedule A Defendants”), Schedule B (“Schedule B Defendants”), and 

Schedule C (“Schedule C Defendants”) (collectively, “Defendants” or “Defendant Internet 

Stores”) and allege as follows:

NATURE OF ACTION

1. This action is for patent infringement arising under the patent law of the United 

States, 35 U.S.C. § 1 et seq., including 35 U.S.C. §§ 271, 281, 283, 284, 285, and 289. 

2. Plaintiffs have filed this action to combat e-commerce store operators who trade 

upon Plaintiffs’ reputation and goodwill by making, using, offering for sale, selling and/or 

importing into the United States for subsequent sale and use of unauthorized and unlicensed 

products, namely the self-balancing transport devices known as hoverboards shown in Exhibit 1, 

that infringe Plaintiffs’ patented designs (“Infringing Products”). Defendants create e-commerce 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 101 Filed: 11/19/20 Page 1 of 19 PageID #:3192
2

stores operating under one or more seller aliases or fictitious names identified in Schedule A, 

Schedule B, and Schedule C that are making, using, offering for sale, selling, and/or importing 

into the United States for subsequent sale or use of Infringing Products to unknowing consumers. 

Defendant Internet Stores share unique identifiers establishing a logical relationship between them 

and Defendants’ operation, which arises out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of 

transactions or occurrences. Defendants attempt to avoid and mitigate liability by operating one 

or more Defendant Internet Stores to conceal both their identities and the full scope and 

interworking of their operation. 

3. Plaintiffs are forced to file this action to combat Defendants’ infringement of their

patented designs, as well as to protect unknowing consumers from purchasing Infringing Products 

over the Internet. Plaintiffs have been and continue to be irreparably damaged from the loss of 

their lawful patent rights to exclude others from making, using, selling, offering for sale, and 

importing their patented designs as a result of Defendants’ actions and seeks injunctive and 

monetary relief. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

4. 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). 

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

exercise personal jurisdiction over Defendants because each of the Defendants directly targets 

business activities toward consumers in the United States, including Illinois, through at least the 

fully interactive, e-commerce stores, operating under the Defendant Internet Stores. See Schedule 

A, Schedule B, and Schedule C. Specifically, Defendants have targeted sales to Illinois residents 

by setting up and operating e-commerce stores that target United States consumers using one or

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 101 Filed: 11/19/20 Page 2 of 19 PageID #:3193
3

more Defendant Internet Stores, offer shipping to the United States, including Illinois, accept 

payment in U.S. dollars and, on information and belief, have sold products featuring Plaintiffs’ 

patented designs to residents of Illinois. Each of the Defendants are committing tortious acts in 

Illinois, engaging in interstate commerce, and have wrongfully caused Plaintiff substantial injury 

in Illinois. 

THE PARTIES

6. Plaintiff Chic is a high-tech company that manufactures and licenses hoverboard 

products for sale in the United States. Chic is supported by Zhejiang University Ministry of 

Education Computer Aided Product Innovation Design Engineering Center, the Zhejiang 

University International Design, and Zhejiang Key Laboratory of Service Robot. Chic is located 

in the Liangzhu University Science and Technology Park, Yuhang District, Hangzhou, China

7. Chic designs and sells hoverboards, among other technologies, which incorporate 

the Patents-in-Suit (defined below and attached as Exhibit 2) (collectively, “Plaintiffs’ Products”). 

Chic is the assignee of approximately 400 granted patents related to technologies associated with

the products at issue here, four of which are the subject of this action. 

8. Plaintiff 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. Unicorn, through its affiliates and licenses, 

operates websites which promote and sell genuine Plaintiffs’ Products, and which feature

proprietary content, images and designs exclusive to Plaintiffs. 

9. Defendants are individuals and business entities of unknown makeup who own 

and/or operate one or more Defendant Internet Stores identified in Schedule A, Schedule B, and 

Schedule C and/or other seller aliases not yet known to Plaintiffs. Upon information and belief, 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 101 Filed: 11/19/20 Page 3 of 19 PageID #:3194
4

Defendants reside and/or operate in the People’s Republic of China or other foreign jurisdictions, 

such as India, with less efficient intellectual property enforcement systems, or redistribute products 

from the same or similar sources in those locations. Defendants have the capacity to be sued under 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(b). 

10. Upon information and belief, Schedule A Defendants do not have substantial 

contacts within the United States and are foreign entities operating Defendants Internet Stores and 

selling Infringing Products. 

11. Upon information and belief, some evidence suggests that Schedule B Defendants 

may have some contacts within the United States, but Plaintiffs are unable to confirm their actual 

location based on the publicly available information on third party e-commerce platforms and 

based on state Secretary of State (or similar state agency) records. Some indicia nonetheless 

suggests that Schedule B Defendants may be foreign entities operating Defendant Internet Stores 

and selling Infringing Products. 

12. Upon Information and belief, Schedule C Defendants have contacts in both the U.S. 

and in foreign jurisdictions, but have submitted to jurisdiction and venue within the Northern 

District of Illinois and will comply with any injunctive orders from this Court. 

13. On information and belief, Defendants either individually or jointly, operate one or 

more Defendant Internet Stores listed in Schedule A, Schedule B, and Schedule C. Tactics used 

by Defendants to conceal their identities and the full scope of their operation make it virtually 

impossible for Plaintiffs to learn Defendants’ true identities and the exact interworking of their 

network. If Defendants or requested third parties provide additional credible information 

regarding their identities, Plaintiffs will take appropriate steps to amend the Complaint. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 101 Filed: 11/19/20 Page 4 of 19 PageID #:3195
5

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

14. Chic has been issued with several U.S. design patents relating to hoverboard 

products, including but not limited to, U.S. Design Patent Nos. D737,723 (“the ’D723 patent”), 

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

patent”) (collectively, the “Patents-in-Suit”). See Exhibit 2.

15. The Patents-in-Suit claim and illustrate ornamental features of hoverboards. 

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

were issued on September 1, 2015 and September 8, 2015, respectively. 

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

Patent 

Number

D737,723

Claim Issue Date

September 

1, 2015

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 101 Filed: 11/19/20 Page 5 of 19 PageID #:3196
6

Patent 

Number

D737,723

Claim Issue Date

September 

1, 2015

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 101 Filed: 11/19/20 Page 6 of 19 PageID #:3197
7

Patent 

Number

D737,723

Claim Issue Date

September 

1, 2015

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

Patent 

Number

D738,256

Claim Issue Date

September 

8, 2015

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 101 Filed: 11/19/20 Page 7 of 19 PageID #:3198
8

Patent 

Number

D738,256

Claim Issue Date

September 

8, 2015

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 101 Filed: 11/19/20 Page 8 of 19 PageID #:3199
9

Patent 

Number

D738,256

Claim Issue Date

September 

8, 2015

19. Both the ’D195 patent and the ’D112 patent are titled “Human-Machine Interaction 

Vehicle,” and were issued on April 18, 2017 and April 25, 2017, respectively. 

20. The following table illustrates the figures in the ’D112 patent.

Patent 

Number

Claim Issue Date

D785,112 April 25, 

2017

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 101 Filed: 11/19/20 Page 9 of 19 PageID #:3200
10

Patent 

Number

Claim Issue Date

21. The following table illustrates the figures in the ’D195 patent.

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 101 Filed: 11/19/20 Page 10 of 19 PageID #:3201
11

Patent 

Number

Claim Issue Date

D784,195 April 18, 

2017

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 101 Filed: 11/19/20 Page 11 of 19 PageID #:3202
12

Patent 

Number

Claim Issue Date

22. Jiawei Ying is the named inventor of the Patents-in-Suit, and he has assigned all 

rights, title, and interest to the Patents-in-Suit to Chic. 

23. Chic has licensed to Unicorn the right to sell, offer to sell, and distribute products 

featuring the Patents-in-Suit, including Plaintiffs’ Products. 

24. Plaintiffs utilize the Patents-in-Suit when designing, manufacturing, and selling 

Plaintiffs’ Products. The Patents-in-Suit have revolutionized ornamental design for hoverboards 

that have a central support platform. 

25. The Patents-in-Suit have streamline shapes that are appealing to United States 

customers. Specifically, the ’D723 patent and the ’D256 patent have defined the fundamental 

ornamental configurations of the hoverboard product class. The ’D112 patent features a soft edge 

between the central support platform and the fenders, and the ’D195 patent features a sharper edge. 

26. Plaintiffs’ Products are stylish and modern, and are visually pleasing to the 

consumers, and have become enormously popular to consumers of all ages, resulting in the sale of 

thousands of units in the United States. 

27. Plaintiffs have identified numerous e-commerce stores, including Defendant 

Internet Stores, that offer for sale and/or selling Infringing Products to consumers in this Judicial 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 101 Filed: 11/19/20 Page 12 of 19 PageID #:3203
13

District and throughout the United States. E-commerce sales, including through stores like those 

of Defendants, have resulted in a sharp increase in the shipment of unauthorized products into the 

United States. See Excerpts from Fiscal Year 2018 U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) 

Intellectual Property Seizure Statistics Report at Exhibit 3. 

28. Third party service providers like those used by Defendants do not adequately 

subject new sellers to verification and confirmation of their identities, allowing infringers to use 

untraceably identifiers, such as false names and addresses, when registering with e-commerce 

platforms. See “Combating Trafficking in Counterfeit and Pirated Goods,” prepared by the U.S. 

Dep’t of Homeland Security’s Office of Strategy, Policy, and Plans (Jan. 24, 2020) at Exhibit 4. 

29. Defendants have targeted sales to Illinois residents by setting up and operating ecommerce stores that target United States consumers using one or more Defendant Internet Stores. 

30. Upon information and belief, Defendants have sold and are selling Infringing 

Products on their e-commerce website, offered and are offering shipping to the United States, 

including Illinois, and have accepted and are accepting payment in U.S. dollars. 

31. Defendants concurrently employ and benefit from substantially similar advertising 

and marketing strategies. For example, Defendants facilitate sales by designing the e-commerce 

stores operating the Defendant Internet Stores so that they appear to unknowing consumers to be 

authorized online retailers, outlet stores, or wholesalers. Defendant Internet Stores often include 

content and images that make it difficult for consumers to distinguish such stores from an 

authorized retailer. In addition, Defendant Internet Stores appear sophisticated and accept 

payment in U.S. dollars via credit cards, Paypal, and/or Amazon Pay, for example. 

32. Plaintiffs have not licensed the Patents-in-Suit to the Defendants and none of the 

Defendants are authorized retailers of genuine Plaintiffs’ Products. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 101 Filed: 11/19/20 Page 13 of 19 PageID #:3204
14

33. On information and belief, Defendants have engaged in fraudulent conduct when 

registering the Defendant Internet Stores by providing false, misleading and/or incomplete 

information to e-commerce platforms. 

34. On information and belief, Defendants have anonymously registered and 

maintained seller aliases to prevent one from learning their true identities and the scope of their ecommerce operation. 

35. On information and belief, Defendants regularly register or acquire new seller 

aliases for the purpose of offering for sale and selling Infringing products. Such registration 

patterns are one of the many tactics used by Defendants to conceal their identities and the 

interworking of their operation, as well as to avoid being shut down. 

36. Despite operating under multiple fictitious aliases, the Defendant Internet Stores 

often share unique identifiers, such as templates with common design elements with no contact 

information or other identifying information, keywords, advertising tactics, similarities in prices 

and quantities, same incorrect grammar and misspellings, and/or use of the same text and imagines. 

37. Infringing Products sold by the Defendant Internet Stores bear similar irregularities 

and indicia of being unauthorized to one another, suggesting that some Defendants are interrelated 

and that the Infringing Products come from and were manufactured by a common source. 

38. On information and belief, many Defendants maintain off-shore accounts and 

regularly move funds from their financial accounts to off-shore bank accounts outside this Court’s 

jurisdiction to avoid payment of any monetary judgment awarded to Plaintiffs. 

39. On information and belief, Defendants are an interrelated group of infringers 

working in active concert to knowingly and willfully make, use, offer for sale, sell, and/or import 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 101 Filed: 11/19/20 Page 14 of 19 PageID #:3205
15

into the United States for subsequent sale or use Infringing Products in the same transaction, 

occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences. 

40. Defendants, without any authorization or license from Plaintiffs, have jointly and 

severally, knowingly and willfully made, used, offered for sale, sold, and/or imported into the 

United States for subsequent resale or use products that directly and/or indirectly infringe the 

Patents-in-Suit, irreparably harming Plaintiffs. 

COUNT I 

Design Patent Infringement – Patent No. D737,723

(35 U.S.C. § 271)

41. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference the allegations provided in the 

preceding paragraphs. 

42. Defendants are making, using, offering for sale, selling, and/or importing into the 

United States for subsequent sale or use Infringing Products that directly and/or indirectly infringe 

the Patents-in-Suit. 

43. Defendants have infringed the Patents-in-Suit through the alleged acts and will 

continue to do so unless enjoined by this Court. Defendants’ wrongful conduct has caused 

Plaintiffs to suffer irreparable harm resulting from the loss of control its lawful patent rights to 

exclude others from making, using, selling, offering for sale, and importing the patented invention. 

Plaintiffs are entitled to injunctive relief under 35 U.S.C. § 283. 

44. Plaintiffs are entitled to recover damages adequate to compensate for the 

infringement, including Defendants’ profits under 35 U.S.C. § 289. Plaintiffs are entitled to 

recover any other damages as appropriate under 35 U.S.C. § 284. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 101 Filed: 11/19/20 Page 15 of 19 PageID #:3206
16

COUNT II 

Design Patent Infringement – Patent No. D738,256

(35 U.S.C. § 271)

45. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference the allegations provided in the 

preceding paragraphs. 

46. Defendants are making, using, offering for sale, selling, and/or importing into the 

United States for subsequent sale or use Infringing Products that directly and/or indirectly infringe 

the Patents-in-Suit. 

47. Defendants have infringed the Patents-in-Suit through the alleged acts and will 

continue to do so unless enjoined by this Court. Defendants’ wrongful conduct has caused 

Plaintiffs to suffer irreparable harm resulting from the loss of control of their lawful patent rights 

to exclude others from making, using, selling, offering for sale, and importing the patented 

invention. Plaintiffs are entitled to injunctive relief under 35 U.S.C. § 283. 

48. Plaintiffs are entitled to recover damages adequate to compensate for the 

infringement, including Defendants’ profits under 35 U.S.C. § 289. Plaintiffs are entitled to 

recover any other damages as appropriate under 35 U.S.C. § 284. 

COUNT III

Design Patent Infringement – Patent No. D785,112

(35 U.S.C. § 271)

49. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference the allegations provided in the 

preceding paragraphs. 

50. Defendants are making, using, offering for sale, selling, and/or importing into the 

United States for subsequent sale or use Infringing Products that directly and/or indirectly infringe 

the Patents-in-Suit.

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 101 Filed: 11/19/20 Page 16 of 19 PageID #:3207
17

51. Defendants have infringed the Patents-in-Suit through the alleged acts and will 

continue to do so unless enjoined by this Court. Defendants’ wrongful conduct has caused 

Plaintiffs to suffer irreparable harm resulting from the loss of control of their lawful patent rights 

to exclude others from making, using, selling, offering for sale, and importing the patented 

invention. Plaintiffs are entitled to injunctive relief under 35 U.S.C. § 283. 

52. Plaintiffs are entitled to recover damages adequate to compensate for the 

infringement, including Defendants’ profits under 35 U.S.C. § 289. Plaintiffs are entitled to 

recover any other damages as appropriate under 35 U.S.C. § 284. 

COUNT IV

Design Patent Infringement – Patent No. D784,195

(35 U.S.C. § 271)

53. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference the allegations provided in the 

preceding paragraphs. 

54. Defendants are making, using, offering for sale, selling, and/or importing into the 

United States for subsequent sale or use Infringing Products that directly and/or indirectly infringe 

the Patents-in-Suit. 

55. Defendants have infringed the Patents-in-Suit through the alleged acts and will 

continue to do so unless enjoined by this Court. Defendants’ wrongful conduct has caused 

Plaintiffs to suffer irreparable harm resulting from the loss of control of their lawful patent rights 

to exclude others from making, using, selling, offering for sale, and importing the patented 

invention. Plaintiffs are entitled to injunctive relief under 35 U.S.C. § 283. 

56. Plaintiffs are entitled to recover damages adequate to compensate for the 

infringement, including Defendants’ profits under 35 U.S.C. § 289. Plaintiffs are entitled to 

recover any other damages as appropriate under 35 U.S.C. § 284. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 101 Filed: 11/19/20 Page 17 of 19 PageID #:3208
18

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs seek relief as follows: 

57. That Defendants, their agents, servants, employees, officers, attorneys, successors, 

and assigns, and all persons acting in concert with defendants, or on their behalf, be enjoined, in 

this and all other judicial districts in the United States, preliminarily during the course of this 

litigation and permanently, from: 

a. making, using, offering for sale, selling, and/or importing into the United 

States for subsequent sale or use any products not authorized by Plaintiffs 

and that include any reproduction, copy or colorable imitation of the design 

claimed in the Patents-in-Suit; 

b. aiding, abetting, contributing to, or otherwise assisting anyone in infringing 

upon the Patents-in-Suit; and, 

c. effecting assignments or transfers, forming new entities or associations or 

utilizing any other devise for the purpose of circumventing or otherwise 

avoiding the prohibitions set forth in above. 

58. Entry of an Order that, upon Plaintiffs’ request, those with notice of the injunction, 

including, without limitation, any only marketplace platforms such as eBay, Amazon, and Walmart 

(collectively, “Third Party Providers”) shall disable and cease displaying any advertisements used 

by or associated with Defendants associated with the sale of goods that infringe the Patents-inSuit; 

59. That Defendants deliver for destruction all Infringing Products that infringe on the 

Patents-in-Suit. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 101 Filed: 11/19/20 Page 18 of 19 PageID #:3209
19

60. A judgment in favor of Plaintiffs that Defendants have infringed the Patents-inSuit;

61. That Plaintiffs be awarded such damages as it shall prove at trial against Defendants 

that are adequate to compensate Plaintiffs for infringement of the Patents-in-Suit, and all of the 

profits realized by Defendants, or others acting in concert or participation with Defendants, from 

Defendants’ unauthorized use and infringement of the Patents-in-Suit;

62. That Plaintiff be awarded from Defendants, as a result of Defendants’ use and 

infringement of the Patents-in-Suit, three times Plaintiffs’ damages therefrom and three times 

Defendants’ profits therefrom, after an accounting under 35 U.S.C. § 284; 

63. That Plaintiffs be awarded their reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs; and 

64. Award any and all other relief that this Court deems just and proper. 

Date: November 17, 2020 Respectfully Submitted,

LOEB & LOEB LLP

By: /s/ Adam Kelly

Adam Kelly

Doug 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: ayaun@loeb.com

Email: nnandi@loeb.com

Christopher Binns (admitted pro hac vice)

345 Park Avenue

New York, New York 10154

Email: cbinns@loeb.com

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 101 Filed: 11/19/20 Page 19 of 19 PageID #:3210