HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY

The BERO Group

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

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

Third Supplemental Declaration of Richard F. Bero, CPA, CVA

November 8, 2022

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 595 Filed: 11/09/22 Page 1 of 46 PageID #:14332
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY

The BERO Group ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. Introduction......................................................................................................................... 1

A. Assignment ............................................................................................................. 1

B. Basis for opinions ................................................................................................... 3

C. Preliminary injunction hearing ............................................................................... 4

D. Expert experience and compensation...................................................................... 4

E. Parties in the lawsuit ............................................................................................... 4

1. Hangzhou Chic............................................................................................ 4

2. Unicorn Global, Inc. ....................................... 7

3. Gyroor Defendants...................................................................................... 8

II. Summary of opinions.......................................................................................................... 9

III. The ʼD723 and ʼD256 patents relate to Hoverboards....................................................... 10

A. ʼD723 patent.......................................................................................................... 11

B. ʼD256 patent.......................................................................................................... 11

IV. Market overview and competitors .................................................................................... 12

A. Hoverboard market ............................................................................................... 12

B. Competitors........................................................................................................... 14

V. Chic’s and Unicorn’s Patented Hoverboards.................................................................... 14

A. Chic’s Patented Hoverboards................................................................................ 14

B. ’s (Unicorn’s) Patented Hoverboards...................................................... 15

VI. Defendants’ products........................................................................................................ 18

A. Accused Hoverboards........................................................................................... 18

VII. Unicorn’s lost sales and profits......................................................................................... 20

VIII. Opinion 1: There appears to be some causal nexus between the ʼD723 and ʼD256 

patents and the demand for the Patented Products............................................................ 21

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 595 Filed: 11/09/22 Page 2 of 46 PageID #:14333
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY

The BERO Group iii

A. Direct competition – Plaintiffs and the Gyroor Defendants directly 

compete ................................................................................................................. 22

B. Commercial success – The Patented Products have been commercially 

successful .............................................................................................................. 23

C. Conclusion ............................................................................................................ 24

IX. Opinion 2: The Plaintiffs will be irreparably harmed if the Gyroor Defendants 

continue selling their Gyroor-branded Accused Products in the United States................ 24

A. Monetary damages will not fully compensate the Plaintiff .................................. 25

1. Overview of patent damages..................................................................... 25

B. Conclusion ............................................................................................................ 29

X. Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 29

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 595 Filed: 11/09/22 Page 3 of 46 PageID #:14334
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY

The BERO Group

I. Introduction

A. Assignment

1. I have been asked to provide a Third Supplemental Declaration on behalf of 

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

Unicorn Global, Inc. (“Unicorn”) (collectively, the “Plaintiffs”) in Hangzhou 

Chic Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd. and Unicorn Global, Inc. v. The 

Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A

(collectively, “the Defendants”). 

2. I previously issued a Declaration dated October 23, 2020, a Supplemental 

Declaration dated November 19, 2020 and a Second Supplemental 

Declaration dated August 24, 2021 in this matter. I understand the Court 

issued a preliminary injunction on November 24, 2020, which it modified on 

December 23, 2020.

1

3. On August 9, 2021, I understand the Court ordered the Plaintiffs to file and 

serve a new preliminary injunction motion on at least two defendants, 

Fengchi-US and Urbanmax,2 as part of a group of Defendants (the “Gyroor 

Defendants”) selling accused Gyroor-branded products.3 As a result, I was

asked to submit a Second Supplemental Declaration as it specifically related

to the Gyroor Defendants.

4

4. On October 28, 2022, I understand the United States Court of Appeals for the 

Federal Circuit vacated the 2020 and 2021 preliminary injunctions issued in 

this matter.5

5. As a result, I have been asked to update my opinions included in my 

Declaration dated October 2020, my Supplemental Declaration dated 

November 19, 2020 and my Second Supplemental Declaration dated August 

1 Preliminary Injunction Order dated November 24, 2020 and Modified Preliminary Injunction Order dated 

December 23, 2020.

2 Dkt. 359 minute entry dated August 9, 2021.

3

I define the “Gyroor Defendants” below.

4 For purposes of this Declaration, I understand the claims against the Gyroor Defendants are the same as they are or 

were against all the other Defendants in this matter.

5 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Opinions numbered 2021-2150 and 2022-1071. I 

understand the 2021 preliminary injunction was issued after my Second Supplemental Declaration.

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 595 Filed: 11/09/22 Page 4 of 46 PageID #:14335
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY

The BERO Group

2

24, 2021 related to: 1) the causal nexus between the patents-in-suit and 

demand for the Patented Products; and 2) irreparable harm the Plaintiffs will 

incur if the Defendants continue selling their Accused Products in the United 

States. These opinions were in support of the Plaintiffs’ motion for a 

preliminary injunction (that was granted), which sought to bar all the

Defendants in this matter from manufacturing, using, importing, offering for 

sale, or selling accused products alleged to infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 

D737,723 (“the ʼD723 patent”), D738,256 (“the ’D256 patent”), D784,195 

(“the ’D195 patent”), and D785,112 (“the ʼD112 patent”) (collectively, the 

“patents-in-suit”).

6

6. For purposes of this Declaration, I have been asked to address only the ʼD723 

and ʼD256 patents. As such, I do not specifically address the ʼD195 or ʼD112

patents in this Declaration.

7. Chic alleges the Defendants (including the Gyroor Defendants) have infringed 

certain claims of the ʼD723 and ʼD256 patents.

7

 The ʼD723 and ʼD256 patents

are titled “Self-Balancing Vehicle,” and were issued on September 1, 2015 

and September 8, 2015, respectively.

8

8. Chic has accused the Defendants (including the Gyroor Defendants) of 

infringing the ʼD723 and ʼD256 patents by making, using, offering for sale,

selling and / or importing into the United States for sale of use products that 

directly and / or indirectly infringe the Plaintiffs’ Designs (the “Gyroorbranded Accused Products” as it relates to the Gyroor Defendants, or, more 

generally, “Accused Products” or “Accused Hoverboards”).

9

9. I have not formed any opinions about the infringement, validity or 

enforceability of the ʼD723 or ʼD256 patents, or any legal opinions relating to

other aspects of this matter. However, for purposes of my analysis, I assume

the ʼD723 and ʼD256 patents are infringed, valid and enforceable.

6 Third Am. Compl. 15-19.

7 Third Am. Compl. 15-16. I understand the Plaintiffs still allege the Defendants (including the Gyroor Defendants)

infringe certain claims of the ʼD195 and ʼD112 patents.

8 Third Am. Compl. 5.

9 Third Am. Compl. 15-16.

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 595 Filed: 11/09/22 Page 5 of 46 PageID #:14336
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY

The BERO Group

3

B. Basis for opinions

10. My opinions are based upon the following: 

• the Third Amended Complaint (Dkt. 101), other legal filings and 

related exhibits in this matter, including the ʼD723 and ʼD256

patents, and various declarations;

• documents and information produced / provided by the Plaintiffs;

• Declaration of Jinyuan Lei dated August 14, 2020 and Declaration 

of Jinyuan Lei dated October 23, 2020;

• Declaration of Jiawei Ying dated August 14, 2020 and Declaration 

of Jiawei Ying dated October 23, 2020;

• Declaration of Jing Cui dated August 20, 2021;

• the Expert Declaration of Paul Hatch dated November 8, 2022 (the 

“November 2022 Hatch Declaration”);

• the Expert Declaration of Paul Hatch dated August 24, 2021 (the 

“August 2021 Hatch Declaration”);

• the Expert Declaration of Paul Hatch dated November 12, 2020 

(the “Hatch Declaration”);10

• independent research; and 

• my skills, knowledge, professional background, education and work 

experience.

11. A detailed list of data and other information I have considered at this time in 

developing my opinions is included as Third Supplemental Attachment 1. 

In the event additional relevant information becomes available after the 

issuance of my Declaration, I will incorporate such information as necessary. 

10 Paul Hatch previously issued a Declaration dated October 16, 2020 in this matter. I understand Paul Hatch’s 

Declaration dated November 12, 2020 updated and superseded his October 16, 2020 Declaration. As such, I will 

refer to his November 12, 2020 Declaration as the “Hatch Declaration” herein.

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 595 Filed: 11/09/22 Page 6 of 46 PageID #:14337
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY

The BERO Group

4

C. Preliminary injunction hearing

12. In preparing for the preliminary injunction hearing, I may prepare 

demonstrative exhibits based upon information included in this Declaration

and/or additional information which becomes available hereafter.

D. Expert experience and compensation

13. I am a certified public accountant accredited in business valuation, a certified 

valuation analyst and the Managing Director of The BERO Group. Since 

1987, I have analyzed economic damages and accounting and financial issues 

in a variety of litigation matters concerning areas such as patent infringement, 

trademark infringement, copyright infringement, trade secrets, breach of 

contract, dealership disputes and construction disputes. I have testified as an 

expert more than 150 times. My curriculum vitae, including a list of my 

testimonial experience in the last four years and publications in the last ten 

years, is included as Third Supplemental Attachment 2. 

14. Compensation to The BERO Group for professional services provided in 

preparing this Declaration is based on our customary hourly fees. My hourly 

rate is $675, while the rates for my staff are less. Compensation to The BERO 

Group is not in any way dependent on the substance of my opinions. The 

BERO Group does not have any financial or other interest in the outcome of 

this dispute.

15. Regarding all my opinions and analyses, I assume the Plaintiffs reported 

revenues, costs, units and other data are generally accurate and reliable. 

E. Parties in the lawsuit

1. Hangzhou Chic

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

products sold in the United States.

11

 Chic is located in Hangzhou, China.12 

Chic designs and sells hoverboards, among other technologies, which

11 Third Am. Compl. 3.

12 Third Am. Compl. 3.

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 595 Filed: 11/09/22 Page 7 of 46 PageID #:14338
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY

The BERO Group

5

incorporate the ʼD723 and ʼD256 patents (collectively, the “Patented 

Products” or “Patented Hoverboards”).13 Chic is the assignee of 

approximately 400 patents related to technologies associated with the Patented 

Products, including the ʼD723 and ʼD256 patents described herein.14

17. Chic shipped its first hoverboard to the United States in December 2014.15 

18. Chic’s Patented Products are sold into the United States.16, 

Chic began licensing its Chinese patents to Chinese manufacturers through 

.

17

 In turn, these Chinese manufacturers

sold these products into the United States.18

19.

 

 

 

13 Third Am. Compl. 3.

14 Third Am. Compl. 3.

15 Declaration of Jiawei Ying 2 (October 23, 2020).

16 Declaration of Jiawei Ying 2 (October 23, 2020).

17 Declaration of Jiawei Ying 2 (October 23, 2020).

18 Declaration of Jiawei Ying 2 (October 23, 2020).

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 595 Filed: 11/09/22 Page 8 of 46 PageID #:14339
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY

The BERO Group

6

20.

 

 

21.

 manufacture, sell

and offer to sell the Patented Hoverboards in the U.S.

27

 

 

26 Declaration of Jiawei Ying 2 (October 23, 2020). Chic – Unicorn License. 

27 Declaration of Jiawei Ying 2 (October 23, 2020). Chic – Unicorn License. 

30 Declaration of Jiawei Ying 2 (October 23, 2020). Chic – Unicorn License. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 595 Filed: 11/09/22 Page 9 of 46 PageID #:14340
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY

The BERO Group

7

 

22.

2. Unicorn Global, Inc. ( )

23. Unicorn is a California corporation with its principal place of business located 

in Ontario, California.34 Before this lawsuit was filed, Unicorn effectively had

the exclusive rights to manufacture, sell and offer to sell the Plaintiffs’ 

Products in the United States.

35

 Through its affiliates and licenses, Unicorn 

operates websites that promote and sell genuine Plaintiffs’ Products, and 

which feature proprietary content, images and designs exclusive to Plaintiffs.36

24.

 

 

25.

26. From September 2020 through approximately August 2021, I understand 

Unicorn’s monthly sales of the Patented Hoverboards were approximately 

50% less than they were in comparable months in 2019 and 2020.

41

31 Declaration of Jiawei Ying 3 (October 23, 2020). Chic – Unicorn License. 

32 Declaration of Jiawei Ying 3 (October 23, 2020).

33 Global Hoverboard Scooters Market 2020 Report (QYR Research) 55.

34 Third Am. Compl. 3.

35 Chic – Unicorn License. Third Am. Compl. 3.

36 Third Am. Compl. 3. 

37 Schedule 1.0. Declaration of Jinyuan Lei 2 (October 23, 2020).

38 Schedule 1.0.

39 Schedule 1.0. Declaration of Jinyuan Lei 2 (October 23, 2020).

40 Schedule 1.0.

41 Declaration of Jing Cui 2 (August 20, 2021). I briefly address the reasons Unicorn believes the sales of its 

Patented Hoverboards have decreased since September 2020 below. Also, I have not been asked to address 

Unicorn’s sales of its Patented Hoverboards since my Second Supplemental Declaration in this Declaration.

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 595 Filed: 11/09/22 Page 10 of 46 PageID #:14341
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY

The BERO Group

8

3. Gyroor Defendants

27. The Gyroor Defendants are individuals and business entities who own and / or 

operate one or more Gyroor Defendant Internet Stores and / or other aliases 

not yet known to the Plaintiffs.42 The Gyroor Defendants are alleged to reside 

and / or operate in the People’s Republic of China.

43

 

28. More specifically, I understand the Gyroor Defendants currently include the 

following stores that have sold Gyroor-branded Accused Products on 

Amazon: Gyroor, Gyroor US, Jiangyou-US, Gyroshoes, Fengchi-US, HGSM, 

Gaodeshang-US, Urbanmax and their affiliated stores, and independent 

websites Gyroorboard.com and Gyroor.com.

44

29. At the time the Third Amended Complaint was filed, I understand the 

Defendants were split into three groups: Schedule A Defendants, Schedule B 

Defendants and Schedule C Defendants.45 I understand the Gyroor 

Defendants are Schedule A Defendants. I understand the Schedule A 

Defendants, including the Gyroor Defendants, do not have substantial contacts 

within the United States and are foreign entities that operate Defendant 

Internet Stores and sell Accused Products.46

30. As a Schedule A Defendant, the Gyroor Defendants are alleged to either 

individually or jointly, operate one or more Gyroor Defendant Internet 

Stores.47 The Defendants (including the Gyroor Defendants) are alleged to use 

tactics to conceal their identities and full scope of their operations that make it 

virtually impossible for Plaintiffs to learn the Defendants’ true identities and 

the exact interworking of their network.

48

 The Defendant Internet Stores 

(including those of the Gyroor Defendants) regularly create new online 

marketplace accounts on various platforms, and other unknown fictitious 

42 Third Am. Compl. 3.

43 Third Am. Compl. 3-4.

44 Declaration of Jing Cui 2 (August 20, 2021).

45 Third Am. Compl. 3-4. These Defendant Internet Stores are listed on Schedules A, B and C to the Third 

Amended Complaint. I understand the Defendants listed on Schedule B and C are not relevant to this Declaration, 

so I will not address them further.

46 Third Am. Compl. 4.

47 Third Am. Compl. 4.

48 Third Am. Compl. 4.

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 595 Filed: 11/09/22 Page 11 of 46 PageID #:14342
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY

The BERO Group

9

names and addresses.49 These registration patterns are one of many common 

tactics used by the Defendant Internet Stores (including those of the Gyroor 

Defendants) to conceal their identifies, the full scope and interworking of their 

operations, and help them from being shut down.50

31. The Gyroor Defendants allegedly design e-commerce stores operating the

Gyroor Defendant Internet Stores so they appear to unknowing customers to 

be authorized online retailers, outlet stores or wholesalers.51 The Gyroor

Defendant Internet Stores are alleged to often include content and images that 

make it difficult for consumers to distinguish such stores from an authorized 

retailer.52 The Defendant Internet Stores (including those of the Gyroor 

Defendants) apparently accept payment in U.S. dollars via credit cards, Paypal 

and/or Amazon Pay.53 

32. As of approximately July 2021, Chic was aware of at least 18 different 

merchants who sold or offered for sale Gyroor-branded Accused Products, on 

Amazon.com.54 

II. Summary of opinions

33. I have developed the following two opinions, and address each opinion in 

more detail below:

• Opinion 1: There appears to be some causal nexus between the ʼD723 and 

ʼD256 patents and the demand for the Patented Products.

• Opinion 2: The Plaintiffs will be irreparably harmed if the Gyroor 

Defendants continue selling their Gyroor-branded Accused Products in the 

United States.

49 Declaration of Jiawei Ying 11 (August 14, 2020). Schedule A to the Third Am. Compl.

50 Declaration of Jiawei Ying 11 (August 14, 2020).

51 Third Am. Compl. 13.

52 Third Am. Compl. 13.

53 Third Am. Compl. 13.

54 Declaration of Arthur Tan-Chi Yuan in Support of Motion to Show Cause dated July 13, 2021 at 10-11.

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 595 Filed: 11/09/22 Page 12 of 46 PageID #:14343
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY

The BERO Group

10

III. The ʼD723 and ʼD256 patents relate to Hoverboards

34. I understand the ʼD723 and ʼD256 patents generally claim and illustrate 

ornamental feature of hoverboards.55 

35. The Plaintiffs use the ʼD723 and ʼD256 patents when designing, 

manufacturing and selling the Plaintiffs’ Products.56

36. Chic has licensed enforcement rights for the ʼD723 and ʼD256 patents to 

Unicorn.57

37. The ʼD723 and ʼD256 patents have revolutionized ornamental design for 

hoverboards that have a central platform system.58

38. The ʼD723 and ʼD256 patents have streamline shapes that are appealing to 

customers in the United States.

59

 Specifically:60

• The ʼD723 and ʼD256 patents have defined the fundamental ornamental 

configurations of the hoverboard product class

39. The Plaintiffs have not licensed the ʼD723 and ʼD256 patents to the Gyroor

Defendants and none of the Gyroor Defendants are authorized retailers of the 

Plaintiffs’ Products.61

40. Chic believes the ʼD723 and ʼD256 patents have revolutionized hoverboard 

ornamental designs by featuring distinctive designs with a central support 

platform, which feature streamline shapes with sleek contours.62 Chic also 

believes these designs are stylish and modern, and are visually pleasing to 

consumers.

63

55 Third Am. Compl. 5.

56 Third Am. Compl. 12.

57 Chic – Unicorn License.

58 Third Am. Compl. 12.

59 Third Am. Compl. 12.

60 Third Am. Compl. 12.

61 Third Am. Compl. 13.

62 Declaration of Jiawei Ying 10 (August 14, 2020).

63 Third Am. Compl. 12. Declaration of Jiawei Ying 10 (August 14, 2020).

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 595 Filed: 11/09/22 Page 13 of 46 PageID #:14344
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY

The BERO Group

11

A. ʼD723 patent 

41. The ʼD723 patent is titled “Self-Balancing Vehicle,” and was issued on 

September 1, 2015.

64

 The ʼD723 patent claim reads: 65 

The ornamental design for a self-balancing vehicle, as 

shown and described.

The ʼD723 patent is further defined through eight (8) Drawing Sheets, one of 

which is included below:

B. ʼD256 patent

42. The ʼD256 patent is also titled “Self-Balancing Vehicle,” and was issued on 

September 8, 2015.

66

 The ʼD256 patent claim reads: 67 

The ornamental design for a self-balancing vehicle, as 

shown and described.

The ʼD256 patent is further defined through eight (8) Drawing Sheets, one of 

which is included below:

64 ʼD723 patent.

65 ʼD723 patent.

66 ʼD256 patent.

67 ʼD256 patent.

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 595 Filed: 11/09/22 Page 14 of 46 PageID #:14345
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY

The BERO Group

12

IV. Market overview and competitors

A. Hoverboard market

43. Electronic self-balancing scooters or self-balancing two-wheeled personal 

transporters, are commonly known as hoverboards.68 Hoverboards are a type 

of portable, battery-powered and rechargeable scooter that generally have two 

wheels configured in a side-by-side manner, with two platforms between the 

wheels on which the rider stands and balances.69 Hoverboards are controlled 

by a rider’s feet, which are placed on the sensor of each platform.70

Hoverboards can be segmented into various wheel sizes (i.e., 6.5-inch, 8-inch, 

and 10-inch) and application (i.e., teenagers and adults).71

68 Declaration of Jiawei Ying 1 (October 23, 2020).

69 Declaration of Jiawei Ying 2 (October 23, 2020). Global Hoverboard Scooters Market 2020 Report (QYR 

Research) 1.

70 Declaration of Jiawei Ying 2 (October 23, 2020).

71 Declaration of Jiawei Ying 2 (October 23, 2020). This segmentation is similar to the Global Hoverboard Scooters 

Market 2020 Report (QYR Research), which categorizes hoverboards in three categories based on their wheel sizes 

of < 7-inch wheels, 7-9 inch wheels and > 9-inch wheels, at 3-11.

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 595 Filed: 11/09/22 Page 15 of 46 PageID #:14346
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY

The BERO Group

13

44. More than 90% of hoverboards are produced in China and exported to 

different regions of the world.72

45. In 2019, North America was considered the biggest market for hoverboards in 

the world (in U.S. $’s), accounting for approximately 39% of worldwide sales. 

Asia-Pacific (approximately 37%) and Europe (approximately 18%) were the 

second and third biggest markets for hoverboard sales (in U.S. $’s) in 2019.73

46. Within North America, the United States accounted for approximately 93% of 

hoverboard sales dollars in 2019.74

47. In 2015, hoverboard sales in the United States approximated $616 million. 75 

In 2016, in response to hoverboard incidents related to fires or overheating 

issues, the United States Consumer Products Safety Commission set new 

safety standard requirements for hoverboards sold in the United States. 76 In 

2016, hoverboard sales in the United States decreased significantly to 

approximately $149 million, and in 2019, hoverboard sales in the United 

States approximated $162 million.77

48. By 2026, the hoverboard market in the U.S. is projected to increase to 

approximately $220 million.78

49. I understand some of the market challenges in the hoverboard market include: 

1) price volatility risk and supply stability risk; 2) market competition is 

expected to intensify; and 3) Lack of support from upstream / downstream 

partners as a new entry to the market.79

50. Similarly, I understand some of the market risks in the hoverboard market 

include: 1) risk of product sales market concentration; 2) relatively 

concentrated customer risk; 3) market competition risk; 4) risk of rising labor 

72 Global Hoverboard Scooters Market 2020 Report (QYR Research) 13.

73 Global Hoverboard Scooters Market 2020 Report (QYR Research) 22.

74 Global Hoverboard Scooters Market 2020 Report (QYR Research) 30.

75 Global Hoverboard Scooters Market 2020 Report (QYR Research) 30.

76 Global Hoverboard Scooters Market 2020 Report (QYR Research) 28.

77 Global Hoverboard Scooters Market 2020 Report (QYR Research) 30.

78 Global Hoverboard Scooters Market 2020 Report (QYR Research) 30.

79 Global Hoverboard Scooters Market 2020 Report (QYR Research) 86.

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 595 Filed: 11/09/22 Page 16 of 46 PageID #:14347
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY

The BERO Group

14

costs; 5) risk of falling gross margins; 5) technical risk; 6) risk of fluctuations 

in raw material prices; and 7) currency risk.80

B. Competitors 

51. There are many hoverboard competitors in the market. As of 2019, SegwayNinebot, Hover-1 and were considered to have the biggest market shares 

in the world, at approximately 17.7%, 8.4% and %, respectively.81 Other 

smaller competitors in the market included Megawheels, Inmotion, Swagway 

(Swagtron), Airwheel and Razor Hovertrax, among others.82

52. I understand the Plaintiffs consider 

 to be their competitors.83 I also understand the Plaintiffs do not 

consider some personal transporters to be competing in the same space, such 

as those made by Segway-Ninebot, since their products are different from the 

Patented Products and other products they sell.84

53. I understand the Plaintiffs consider the Gyroor Defendants to be competitors 

in the U.S. hoverboard market.

85

V. Chic’s and Unicorn’s Patented Hoverboards86

A. Chic’s Patented Hoverboards

54. As of August 2021, I understand Chic offered their self-balancing scooters in

four design variations under the CHIC brand (SMART and CHIC series).87 

As of August 2021, Chic’s website listed the following characteristics (among 

many others) for their self-balancing scooters:88

• 6.5-inch wheels

• Aircraft grade aluminum alloy framework

80 Global Hoverboard Scooters Market 2020 Report (QYR Research) 86-87.

81

.

82 Global Hoverboard Scooters Market 2020 Report (QYR Research) 14.

83

.

84 Declaration of Jinyuan Lei 4 (October 23, 2020).

85 Declaration of Jing Cui 2 (August 20, 2021).

86 For purposes of this Declaration, I have not been asked to update this section, but generally understand Chic’s and 

Unicorn’s patented products are similar to those described in my Second Supplemental Declaration.

87 http://en.chic-robot.com/product/center/1 and http://en.chic-robot.com/product/center/2.

88 http://en.chic-robot.com/product/detail/19111315584500758597971481736192 and http://en.chicrobot.com/product/detail/19111315572000758597257862853632.

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 595 Filed: 11/09/22 Page 17 of 46 PageID #:14348
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY

The BERO Group

15

• Cool LED headlights

• Natural resin anti-skidding pedals

• Bluetooth stereo

• Top speed of 10 km per hour and range up to 20 km

• United Laboratories certified: UL2272

55. As of August 2021, I understand the Plaintiffs’ Patented Hoverboards 

included the Chic Smart-S/C and Smart-B-F hoverboards.

89

56. As of August 2021, Chic’s Smart-S/C was one model of a Patented 

Hoverboard.

90 The Smart-S/C contains aircraft grade aluminum alloy 

framework, supported by non-inflatable hollow tires.

91 Features of the SmartS/C include LED illumination, anti-skid footpads, and Bluetooth connectivity, 

among others.

92

57. As of August 2021, Chic’s Smart-B/F was another model of a Patented 

Hoverboard.

93 The Smart-B/F contains aircraft grade aluminum, supported by 

non-inflatable hollow tires.

94

 Features of the Smart-B/F include streamlined 

LED highlights, natural-resin anti-skidding pedals, and Bluetooth 

connectivity.95

58.

.

96

B. (Unicorn’s) Patented Hoverboards

59. I understand Unicorn’s patent-practicing products are sold in the following 

four series: Pure-Color, Funny, Off-Road and Chrome.97

89 http://en.chic-robot.com/product/center/1. 

90 http://en.chic-robot.com/product/detail/19111315572000758597257862853632. 

91 Declaration of Jiawei Ying 3 (October 23, 2020) and http://en.chicrobot.com/product/detail/19111315572000758597257862853632. 

92 Declaration of Jiawei Ying 3 (October 23, 2020) and http://en.chicrobot.com/product/detail/19111315572000758597257862853632. 

93 http://en.chic-robot.com/product/detail/19111315584500758597971481736192. 

94 http://en.chic-robot.com/product/detail/19111315584500758597971481736192. 

95 http://en.chic-robot.com/product/detail/19111315584500758597971481736192. 

96

97 Declaration of Jinyuan Lei 2 (October 23, 2020).

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 595 Filed: 11/09/22 Page 18 of 46 PageID #:14349
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY

The BERO Group

16

60. Uni-Sun’s 6.5” Pure-Color Series hoverboards contain LED front lights and 

flashing wheels, and the majority include Bluetooth.98 The Pure-Color Series 

models contain dual 300-watt motors with a maximum speed of 9 MPH and a 

riding range of up to 9 miles.99 The Pure-Color Series is recommended for 

children ages 4 to 8.100

61. Uni-Sun’s 6.5” Funny Series hoverboards contain LED front / side lights, 

flashing wheels and Bluetooth.101 The Pure-Color Series models contain dual 

300-watt motors with a maximum speed of 9 MPH and a riding range of up to 

9 miles.102 The Pure-Color Series is recommended for all kids and teens.

103

62. Uni-Sun’s 8.5” Off-Road Series hoverboards provide an all-terrain design 

along with “SUV tires” able to travel through “mud, grass, rain and even 

gravel” safely.104 Most Off-Road Series hoverboards include LED front lights 

and Bluetooth.105 Off-Road Series models contain dual 350-watt motors with 

a maximum speed of 10 MPH and a riding range of up to 10 miles.106 The 

Pure-Color Series is recommended for kids, teens and adults.107

63. Uni-Sun’s 6.5” Chrome Series hoverboards include LED front / side lights, 

flashing wheels and Bluetooth.108 Chrome Series models contain dual 300-

watt motors with a maximum speed of 9 MPH and a riding range of up to 9 

miles.109 The Chrome Series is recommended for children ages 9-12. 110

64. Generally speaking, larger hoverboards are more expensive than smaller 

hoverboards. For example, Uni-Sun’s 8.5” Off-Road Series hoverboards are 

more expensive than its various 6.5” series described herein.111

98 Declaration of Jinyuan Lei 2 (October 23, 2020).

99 Declaration of Jinyuan Lei 2-3 (October 23, 2020).

100 Declaration of Jinyuan Lei 3 (October 23, 2020).

101 Declaration of Jinyuan Lei 3 (October 23, 2020).

102 Declaration of Jinyuan Lei 3 (October 23, 2020).

103 Declaration of Jinyuan Lei 3 (October 23, 2020).

104 Declaration of Jinyuan Lei 3 (October 23, 2020).

105 Declaration of Jinyuan Lei 3 (October 23, 2020).

106 Declaration of Jinyuan Lei 3 (October 23, 2020).

107 Declaration of Jinyuan Lei 3 (October 23, 2020).

108 Declaration of Jinyuan Lei 3 (October 23, 2020).

109 Declaration of Jinyuan Lei 3 (October 23, 2020).

110 Declaration of Jinyuan Lei 3 (October 23, 2020).

111 Declaration of Jinyuan Lei 3 (October 23, 2020).

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 595 Filed: 11/09/22 Page 19 of 46 PageID #:14350
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY

The BERO Group

17

65.

 

 

66.

 

 

67.

 

68.

 

 

69.

70. From October 2020 through approximately August 2021, I understand 

Unicorn’s monthly sales of the Patented Hoverboards were approximately 

112

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 595 Filed: 11/09/22 Page 20 of 46 PageID #:14351
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY

The BERO Group

18

50% less than they were in comparable months in 2019 and 2020.121 Unicorn 

believes the decrease in sales of its Patented Hoverboards since September 

2020 were due in part to its sales prior to September 2020 being greater than 

expected (as described above), and other reasons such as supply chain issues 

with products imported from China.122

71. Picture 1 below is a picture of one Patented Hoverboard Unicorn sold as of 

August 2021:

123

Picture 1: One Unicorn Patented Hoverboard

VI. Defendants’ products

A. Accused Hoverboards

72. I understand numerous unauthorized third parties, including the Gyroor 

Defendants, sell and import hoverboard products into the United States that 

imitate the patented designs.

124

 As defined earlier, these Gyroor “Defendant 

Internet Stores” sell or offer for sale Gyroor-branded Accused Products on 

their various websites.125 As of approximately July 2021, Chic was aware of 

at least 18 different merchants who sold or offered for sale Gyroor-branded 

Accused Products on Amazon.com.126 

73. I understand the Accused Products in this matter include products that are also 

referred to as “Gyroor A,” “Gyroor C,” and “Gyroor E” products.127

121 Declaration of Jing Cui 2 (August 20, 2021).

122 Declaration of Jing Cui 2 (August 20, 2021).

123 See, e.g., https://www.amazon.com/SISIGAD-Hoverboard-Balancing-Two-WheelCertified/dp/B07KM6WPYC/ref=sr_1_6?dchild=1&keywords=sisigad+hoverboard&qid=1603740626&sr=8-6.

124 Declaration of Jiawei Ying 10-11 (August 14, 2020). Third Am. Compl. 12-13.

125 Declaration of Jiawei Ying 11 (August 14, 2020). Third Am. Compl. 12-13.

126 Declaration of Arthur Tan-Chi Yuan in Support of Motion to Show Cause dated July 13, 2021 at 10-11.

127 November 2022 Hatch Declaration 1 and 21.

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 595 Filed: 11/09/22 Page 21 of 46 PageID #:14352
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY

The BERO Group

19

74. I understand the Gyroor-branded Accused Products are not exact duplicates of 

each other, but share very similar visual traits in their format, proportions and 

main visual features, and share the same overall impression to an ordinary 

observer.128 

75. I understand the Gyroor-branded Accused Products create the visual 

impression to a hypothetical observer of an integrated hourglass body with a 

relatively flat surface across the top of the main body, pronounced ‘footing’

areas, and open-arched fenders over the top of the wheel area.129

76. I understand the claimed design of the ʼD723 patent is substantially the same 

as the visual impression presented by the Gyroor A, C and E Accused 

Products in that the Gyroor A, C and E Accused Products and the ʼD723 

patent both create a visual impression of an integrated hourglass body with a 

relatively flat surface across the top of the main body, pronounced ‘footing’ 

areas, and open-arched fenders over the top of the wheel area.130

77. I understand the claimed design of the ʼD256 patent is substantially the same 

as the visual impression presented by the Gyroor A, C and E Accused 

Products in that the Gyroor A, C and E Accused Products and the ʼD256

patent both create a visual impression of an integrated hourglass body with a 

relatively flat surface across the top of the main body, pronounced ‘footing’ 

areas, and open-arched fenders over the top of the wheel area.131

78. Picture 2 below is a picture of one Accused Gyroor-branded Hoverboard the 

Gyroor Defendants sell:

132

 

128 November 2022 Hatch Declaration 21.

129 November 2022 Hatch Declaration 21.

130 November 2022 Hatch Declaration 29-30, 34 and 38.

131 November 2022 Hatch Declaration 31-32, 36 and 40.

132 November 2022 Hatch Declaration 22.

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 595 Filed: 11/09/22 Page 22 of 46 PageID #:14353
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY

The BERO Group

20

Picture 2: One Accused Gyroor-branded Hoverboard

VII. Unicorn’s lost sales and profits

79. As described above, the hoverboard market in the U.S. in 2019 was estimated 

to be $162 million. 

80. As described above, the Defendants compete with Chic (and Unicorn) by 

selling their Gyroor-branded Accused Products in competition with the 

Patented Products in the U.S. 

81. As described above, Chic sells its Patented Hoverboards through Unicorn, 

which effectively had an exclusive license in the United States for the patentsin-suit when the license was entered into.

82. As noted above, is estimated to have of the worldwide hoverboard 

market share.133 While I understand does not explicitly track its U.S. 

market share, it appears it could be higher (potentially significantly higher) 

than 

 

133

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 595 Filed: 11/09/22 Page 23 of 46 PageID #:14354
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY

The BERO Group

21

 

83. To the extent the Gyroor Defendants have made sales Unicorn otherwise 

would have made in the United States as effectively the exclusive licensee to 

the patents-in-suit, Unicorn has lost sales and profits on these sales since 

January 1, 2019.

84. To the extent U.S. hoverboard market share is at least or 

higher, it is reasonable would have sold of the Gyroorbranded Accused Products. 

VIII. Opinion 1: There appears to be some causal nexus between the ʼD723 and ʼD256 

patents and the demand for the Patented Products.

85. I understand:

138

...“proving a causal nexus requires the patentee to show 

‘some connection’ between the patented features and the 

demand for the infringing products.” According to the 

Federal Circuit, while establishing the patented feature as 

the exclusive driver of demand would weigh more heavily 

in favor of finding a causal nexus, the required causal 

connection can be shown through: [emphasis added]

• “Evidence that a patented feature is one of several 

features that cause consumers to make their purchasing 

decisions;”

• “[E]vidence that the inclusion of a patented feature 

makes a product significantly more desirable;’’ and

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 595 Filed: 11/09/22 Page 24 of 46 PageID #:14355
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY

The BERO Group

22

• “[E]vidence that the absence of a patented feature 

would make a product significantly less desirable.”

86. I understand causal nexus considers the issues of: 1) whether there is direct 

competition between the parties; and 2) whether the patented products have 

had commercial success.

139

 I have been asked to address these two issues, 

which I do below.

A. Direct competition – Plaintiffs and the Gyroor Defendants directly compete

87. As addressed above, Unicorn sells the Patented Products and the Gyroor

Defendants sell the Gyroor-branded Accused Products over the internet in the 

United States. 

88. As addressed above, the Plaintiffs are one of the biggest competitors in the 

hoverboard market, which is a competitive market.

89. As addressed above, none of the Gyroor Defendant Internet Stores are 

authorized sellers of products featuring the patented designs of the ʼD723 and 

ʼD256 patents.

140

90. As addressed above, Unicorn considers the Gyroor Defendants to be direct 

competitors in the U.S. hoverboard market.

91. As an example of direct competition on the same on-line platform, both 

companies sell through Amazon.com. 

 As addressed above, as of approximately 

July 2021, Chic was aware of at least 18 different merchants who sold or 

offered for sale Gyroor-branded Accused Products on Amazon.com.142 

92. As such, the Plaintiffs and the Defendants are direct competitors for 

hoverboard sales in the United States.

139 I understand the Plaintiffs believe the Patented Products have also helped overcome industry skepticism and 

resulted in praise for their Patented Products. At this point, I understand there is incomplete information on these 

categories, and I have no opinion on them.

140 Declaration of Jiawei Ying 11 (August 14, 2020).

141 Declaration of Jiawei Ying 10 (August 14, 2020). Declaration of Jinyuan Lei 9 (August 14, 2020).

142 Declaration of Arthur Tan-Chi Yuan in Support of Motion to Show Cause dated July 13, 2021 at 10-11.

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 595 Filed: 11/09/22 Page 25 of 46 PageID #:14356
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY

The BERO Group

23

B. Commercial success – The Patented Products have been commercially 

successful

93. I understand the designs of the ʼD723 and ʼD256 patents have been copied by 

the Gyroor-branded Accused Products.

143

94. As described above, Chic believes the ʼD723 and ʼD256 patents have 

revolutionized hoverboard ornamental designs by featuring distinctive designs 

with a central support platform, which feature streamline shapes with sleek 

contours.144 Chic also believes these designs are stylish and modern, and are 

visually pleasing to consumers.145

95. I understand Unicorn believes the Patented Products are popular with U.S. 

consumers, in part, because of the patented ornamental designs of the ʼD723 

and ʼD256 patents.

146

96. I understand the Gyroor-branded Accused Products have the same patented 

features shown in the ʼD723 and ʼD256 patents,

147 further confirming the 

patented designs are popular and garner strong consumer demand.

148

97. I understand the Plaintiffs’ designs have become popular in the United States, 

resulting in thousands of Patented Products being sold in the United States.

149

98. From September 2020 through approximately August 2021, I understand 

Unicorn’s monthly sales of the Patented Hoverboards were approximately 

50% less than they were in comparable months in 2019 and 2020.151 Unicorn 

believes the decrease in sales of its Patented Hoverboards since September 

2020 were due in part to its sales prior to September 2020 being greater than 

143 November 2022 Hatch Declaration 26-41.

144 Declaration of Jiawei Ying 10 (August 14, 2020).

145 Third Am. Compl. 12. Declaration of Jiawei Ying 10 (August 14, 2020).

146 Declaration of Jinyuan Lei 2 (October 23, 2020).

147 November 2022 Hatch Declaration, as described above.

148 Declaration of Jinyuan Lei 6 (October 23, 2020).

149 Third Am. Compl. 12. 

150

151 Declaration of Jing Cui 2 (August 20, 2021).

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 595 Filed: 11/09/22 Page 26 of 46 PageID #:14357
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY

The BERO Group

24

expected (as described above), and other reasons such as supply chain issues 

with products imported from China.152

99. Since the inception of this matter, I understand the Plaintiffs have reached 

settlement agreements with a number of former Defendants for the ʼD723 and 

ʼD256 patents.

153

 These settlement agreements reflect business arrangements 

between the parties and may include consent agreements not to sell, lump-sum 

payments for past sales, new purchasing agreements, new manufacturing 

agreements or ongoing royalty payments for new sales.154 These settlement 

agreements further highlight there is demand for the ʼD723 and ʼD256 patents. 

100. As a result, there appears to be some causal nexus between the ʼD723 and 

ʼD256 patents and the demand for the patented products. 

101. As such, the Patented Products have been commercially success.

C. Conclusion

102. As noted above, causal nexus considers the issues of direct competition and 

commercial success. Accordingly, based on the above, the Plaintiffs and 

Gyroor Defendants are direct competitors and the Patented Products have 

been commercially successful. As such, there appears to be some causal 

nexus between the ʼD723 and ʼD256 patents and the demand for the Patented 

Products. 

IX. Opinion 2: The Plaintiffs will be irreparably harmed if the Gyroor Defendants 

continue selling their Gyroor-branded Accused Products in the United States. 

103. I understand irreparable harm considers various issues, including whether 

monetary damages can fully compensate a Plaintiff.

155

 I have been asked to 

address this issue, which I do below. 

152 Declaration of Jing Cui 2 (August 20, 2021).

153 Declaration of Jing Cui 2-3 (August 20, 2021).

154 Declaration of Jing Cui 3 (August 20, 2021).

155 I understand the Plaintiffs believe the Defendants continuing to sell the Gyroor-branded Accused Products has 

also led to price erosion in some cases, a diminished ability to invest in research and development, and damage to 

their reputations. At this point, I understand there is incomplete information on these categories, and I have no 

opinion on them.

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 595 Filed: 11/09/22 Page 27 of 46 PageID #:14358
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY

The BERO Group

25

A. Monetary damages will not fully compensate the Plaintiff

1. Overview of patent damages

104. Damages in patent cases are measured according to 35 U.S.C. Section 284:156

Upon finding for the claimant the court shall award the 

claimant damages adequate to compensate for the 

infringement, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty 

for the use made of the invention by the infringer, together 

with interest and costs as fixed by the court. 

105. Compensatory patent infringement damages attempt to assess:157

. . . the difference between his pecuniary condition after the 

infringement, and what his condition would have been if 

the infringement had not occurred.

106. The question to be asked in determining such damages is:

158

. . . had the Infringer not infringed, what would Patent 

Holder-Licensee have made?

107. Compensatory patent damages traditionally have fallen into two categories, 

either lost profits or reasonable royalty.159 To collect lost profits, a patentee:

160

...must show ‘a reasonable probability that ‘but for’ the 

infringing activity, the patentee would have made the 

infringer’s sales.” This is done by determining what profits 

the patentee would have made absent the infringing 

product. This analysis must be supported by “sound 

economic proof of the nature of the market and likely 

outcomes with infringement factored out of the economic 

picture.”

108. The Federal Circuit has defined lost profits damages as a measure of damages 

“intended to make the party whole—to compensate the patent holder for 

156 35 U.S.C. § 284.

157 Aro Mfg. Co. v. Convertible Top Replacement Co., 377 U.S. 476, 507, 84 S.Ct. 1526, 12 L.Ed.2d 457 (1964); 

Compensatory Damage Issues in Patent Infringement Cases: A Handbook for Federal District Court Judges 3, Jan. 

2010.

158 Aro Mfg. Co. v. Convertible Top Replacement Co., 377 U.S. 476, 507, 84 S.Ct. 1526, 12 L.Ed.2d 457 (1964).

159 Compensatory Damage Issues in Patent Infringement Cases: A Handbook for Federal District Court Judges 3, 

Jan. 2010. A third category, an established royalty, is often considered a form of a reasonable royalty.

160 Akamai Techs., Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc., 805 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2015).

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 595 Filed: 11/09/22 Page 28 of 46 PageID #:14359
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY

The BERO Group

26

profits lost as a result of the infringement. It is not solely a ‘but for’ test.”161

Whereas a reasonable royalty “is intended to compensate the patentee for the 

value of what was taken from him—the patented technology [feature(s)].”162

109. Lost profits can include diverted sales, price erosion, convoyed sales, and 

increased expenses caused by the infringement.163 Generally speaking, a 

patent owner is only entitled to recover lost profits if it is in the business of 

making, using, or selling the patented invention.164

110. Price erosion is a form of lost profits and represents the negative pricing 

effects the patent owner incurs due to the infringer’s sales of the infringing 

products. The measure for price erosion is essentially the difference between 

what the prices would have been ‘but for’ the infringement and the 

presumably lower actual prices. A patent owner may recover for price 

reductions it made on its own product sales as well as on the sales it lost to the 

infringer.165

111. As noted above, damages in patent cases are measured according to 35 U.S.C. 

Section 284.166 In design patent cases such as this, damages are also measured 

according to 35 U.S.C. Section 289.167 In addition to the lost profits and 

reasonable royalty damages provisions contained in 35 U.S.C. Section 284, 35 

U.S.C. Section 289 also allows for the collection of infringer’s profits.168 

However, a design patent owner cannot recover damages under both 35 

161 Warsaw Orthopedic, Inc. v. NuVasive, Inc., 778 F.3d 1365, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citing Rite-Hite Corp. v. 

Kelley Co., Inc., 56 F.3d 1538, 1546 (Fed.Cir.1995) (en banc))., vacated and remanded for further consideration in 

light of Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 1920 (2016), affirmed in part and remanded in part, 

824 F.3d 1344, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2016). 

162 Warsaw Orthopedic, 778 F.3d 1365, 1375 (citing Aqua Shield v. Inter pool Cover Team, 774 F. 3d 766, 770 

(Fed. Cir. 2014)) (quoting Dowagiac Mfg. Co. v. Minn. Moline Plow Co., 235 U.S. 641, 648, 35 S. Ct. 221, 224 

(1915)). 

163 Minco, Inc. v. Combustion Eng'g, Inc., 95 F.3d 1109, 1118 (Fed. Cir. 1996).

164 Rite-Hite Corp. v. Kelley Co., 56 F.3d 1538, 1548 (Fed. Cir. 1995); see also Warsaw Orthopedics, 778F.3d at 

1376. 

165 TWM Mfg. Co. v. Dura Corp., 789 F.2d 895, 902 (Fed. Cir. 1986). 

166 35 U.S.C. § 284.

167 35 U.S.C. § 289.

168 35 U.S.C. § 289. See also, e.g., Polaroid Corp. v. Eastman Kodak Co., 16 USPQ2d 1481, 1484 (D. Mass. 1990).

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 595 Filed: 11/09/22 Page 29 of 46 PageID #:14360
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY

The BERO Group

27

U.S.C. Section 284 and infringer’s profits under 35 U.S.C. Section 289 for 

infringement by the same product.169 

112. In this case, at this point, I understand what matters is what would have 

happened ‘but for’ the Gyroor Defendants’ infringement of the ʼD723 or

ʼD256 patents. If the Plaintiffs would have reasonably sold its Patented 

Products in place of all or a portion of the Accused Products, then it would be 

entitled to lost profits damages on those lost sales. Alternatively, in the event 

the Plaintiffs would not have reasonably sold some or all of its Patented 

Products in place of the Accused Products, the proper form of damages is a 

reasonable royalty on those sales. Also, alternatively, the Plaintiffs could be 

awarded the infringer’s profits on sales of the Gyroor Defendants’ Accused

Products. 

113. If it is determined a reasonably royalty is the proper form of damages, I 

understand the value of what was taken measures the reasonable royalty. The 

Federal Circuit has stated: 170

As a substantive matter, it is the “value of what was 

taken” that measures a “reasonable royalty” under 35 

U.S.C. § 284. [emphasis added]

114. As noted above, the Gyroor Defendants are alleged to reside and / or operate 

in the People’s Republic of China. 

115. I understand the Gyroor Defendants claim the Gyroor-branded Accused 

Products are made based on its own U.S. design patent, D808,857 S,171 which 

was issued on January 30, 2018.172 As such, I understand the Defendants 

claim they cannot infringe the ʼD723 and ʼD256 patents.

173

 

169 Braun Inc. v. Dynamics Corp. of America, 975 F.2d 815, 824, 24 USPQ2d 1121 (C.A.Fed. (Conn.), 1992) (citing 

Bergstrom v. Sears, Roebuck and Co., 496 F.Supp. 476, 494 (D.Minn.1980) (citing Henry Hanger & Display 

Fixture Corp. of America v. Sel-O-Rak Corp., 270 F.2d 635 (5th Cir.1959)).

170 Ericsson, Inc., v. D-Link Systems, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2014) (J. O’Malley) (citing Dowagiac Mfg. Co. v. Minn. Moline 

Plow Co., 235 U.S. 641, 648 (1915)).

171 Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendant Gyroor-US’ Emergency Motion to Dissolve the Preliminary 

Injunctions dated August 9, 2021 and Ex. 1 to this Memorandum.

172 Ex. 2 to the Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendant Gyroor-US’ Emergency Motion to Dissolve the 

Preliminary Injunctions dated August 9, 2021.

173 Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendant Gyroor-US’ Emergency Motion to Dissolve the Preliminary 

Injunctions dated August 9, 2021.

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 595 Filed: 11/09/22 Page 30 of 46 PageID #:14361
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY

The BERO Group

28

116. I understand that just because a company has a design patent(s), does not 

mean they cannot be infringing the design patents of another company, even 

on its products that allegedly incorporate their design patent(s). In this matter, 

I understand the Plaintiffs believe that case law supports their position that the 

Gyroor Defendants can still be infringing the ʼD723 and ʼD256 patents even if 

its D808,857 S design patent is valid.

117. As of August 24, 2021, the date of my Second Supplemental Declaration, one 

of the Gyroor Defendants claimed it would go out of business by the end of 

August 2021 if the preliminary injunction in this matter was not dissolved.174 

118. As of August 24, 2021, the date of my Second Supplemental Declaration, one 

of the Gyroor Defendants claimed that more than $1 million of its U.S. 

account had been frozen as a result of the preliminary injunction.175 

119. The claim by one of the Gyroor Defendants that it would go out of business if 

the injunction was not dissolved appears to highlight the Gyroor Defendants’

reliance on sales of Gyroor-branded Accused Products. It also appears to 

highlight the unlikelihood of their ability to pay any damages that would be 

awarded in this matter. To my knowledge, none of the Gyroor Defendants 

have indicated they would be able to pay any damages that could be awarded 

in this matter.

120. As such, it appears unlikely the Plaintiffs will be able to recover any damages 

it might be awarded, either in the forms of lost profits, reasonable royalty or 

infringer’s profits. 

121. As a result, I understand any monetary damages that may be awarded to the 

Plaintiffs will not fully compensate them since it appears the Gyroor

Defendants are unlikely to ever pay any damages awarded. As such, this 

harm will be irreparable.

174 Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendant Gyroor-US’ Emergency Motion to Dissolve the Preliminary 

Injunctions dated August 9, 2021 and Ex. 1 to this Memorandum. This Gyroor Defendant was Gyroor-US.

175 Ex. 1 to the Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendant Gyroor-US’ Emergency Motion to Dissolve the 

Preliminary Injunctions dated August 9, 2021. This Gyroor Defendant was Gyroor-US.

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 595 Filed: 11/09/22 Page 31 of 46 PageID #:14362
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY

The BERO Group

29

B. Conclusion 

122. As noted above, irreparable harm considers various issues, including whether 

monetary damages can fully compensate a Plaintiff. Accordingly, based on 

the above, monetary damages will not fully compensate the Plaintiffs. As 

such, this harm will be irreparable. 

X. Conclusion

123. My opinions and analyses contained herein are based upon information 

presently known to me. If additional relevant information is made available, I 

may update my opinions and analyses accordingly. 

124. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, I declare under penalty of perjury that the 

foregoing is true and correct.

Executed on November 8, 2022

Richard F. Bero, CPA, CVA

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 595 Filed: 11/09/22 Page 32 of 46 PageID #:14363
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY

DATA AND OTHER INFORMATION CONSIDERED - AS OF THE OCTOBER 23, 2020 BERO DECLARATION:

LEGAL FILINGS:

Complaint with Exhibits 1-4 and Schedule A dated August 17, 2020

Civil Cover Sheet dated August 17, 2020

Attorney Appearance by Adam Glenn Kelly dated August 17, 2020

Attorney Appearance by Douglas N Masters dated August 17, 2020

Attorney Appearance by Arthur Tan-chi Yuan dated August 17, 2020

Fifth Amended General Order 20-0012 In Re Coronavirus Covid-19 dated August 17, 2020

FUS-Mailed Patent Report to Patent Trademark Office dated August 18, 2020

Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice dated August 18, 2020

Order Granting Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice for Christopher Gerald Binns dated August 18, 2020

FUS-Hangzhou Chic Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd. Corporate Disclosure Statement dated August 18, 2020

FUS-Unicorn Global, Inc. Corporate Disclosure Statement dated August 18, 2020

FUS-Notice of Claims Involving Patents dated August 18, 2020

FUS-Amended Complaint-Exhibit 1-4 Schedule A and Redline Amended Complaint dated August 18, 2020

FUS-Plaintiffs Ex Parte Motion For Entry of a Temporary Restraining Order, Including a Temporary Injunction, a Temporary Asset Restraint, and Expedited Discovery dated August 18, 2020

FUS-Memorandum of Law In Support of Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Motion For Entry of a Temporary Restraining Order, Including a Temporary Injunction, a Temporary Asset Restraint, and Expedited 

Discovery dated August 18, 2020

FUS Declaration of Arthur Tan-Chi Yuan in Support of Plaintiffs Ex Parte Motion for Entry of a Temporary Restraining Order dated August 18, 2020 with Exhibits 1-4

FUS-Declaration of Jinyuan Lei dated August 18, 2020

FUS-Declaration OF Jiawei Ying dated August 18, 2020 with Exhibits 1-4

FUS-Plaintiffs’ Motion for Electronic Service of Process Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f)(3) dated August 18, 2020

FUS-Memorandum of Law in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Electronic Service of Process Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f)(3) dated August 18, 2020

FUS-Declaration of Arthur Tan-Chi Yuan in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Electronic Service Exhibit 1-2 dated August 18, 2020

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File Under Seal dated August 18, 2020

Notice of Motion dated August 18, 2020

Attorney Appearance by Christopher Gerald Binns dated August 19, 2020

Docket Entry-Plaintiffs to show cause why the complaint should not be stricken dated August 20, 2020

Docket Entry-motion hearing set for 8-24-20 is hereby stricken dated August 20, 2020

Plaintiffs’ Response to Order to Show Cause dated August 28, 2020 with Exhibit A

FUS-Declaration of Arthur Tan-Chi Yuan in Support of Plaintiffs’ Response to Order to Show Cause dated August 28, 2020 with Exhibits 1-12

FUS-Supplemental Declaration of Jinyuan Lei dated August 28, 2020

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File Under Seal dated August 28, 2020

Notice of Motion dated August 28, 2020

Second Amended Complaint with Exhibits 1-4 and Schedule A dated September 10, 2020 (Filed Under Seal)

FUS-Declaration of Jinyuan Lei in Support of a Declaration of Richard F. Bero dated October 23, 2020

FUS-Declaration of Jiawei Ying in Support of a Declaration of Richard F. Bero dated October 23, 2020

U.S. PATENTS AT ISSUE:

U.S. Patent No. D737,723 S - Self-Balancing Vehicle dated September 1, 2015

U.S. Patent No. D738,256 S - Self-Balancing Vehicle dated September 8, 2015

U.S. Patent No. D784,195 S - Human Machine Interaction Vehicle dated April 18, 2017

U.S. Patent No. D785,112 S - Human Machine Interaction Vehicle dated April 25, 2017

EXPERT REPORTS:

Expert Declaration of Paul Hatch Regarding Infringement of U.S. Patents D737,723, D738,256, D784,195, and D785,112 dated October 16, 2020 with Appendices A-C

Data and Other Information Considered - as of November 8, 2022

Third Supplemental Attachment 1

Page 1 of 4

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 595 Filed: 11/09/22 Page 33 of 46 PageID #:14364
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY

Data and Other Information Considered - as of November 8, 2022

Third Supplemental Attachment 1

DOCUMENTS WITHOUT BATES STAMPS:

2007/0273118 A1 Application - Inline Skateboard - Pub. Date: Nov. 29, 2009 

US Patent No. 6,834,867 B2 - Articulated Two-Piece Snowboard with Connector dated Dec. 28, 2004

US Patent No. 7,424,927 B2- Vehicle, vehicle control device and vehicle control method dated Sep 16, 2008

US Patent No. 7,481,291 B2- Vehicle Steerable By Movement of Center of Gravity dated Jan. 27. 2009 

US Patent No. 7,635,037 B2- Motorized Towing Device dated Dec. 22, 2009

US Patent No. 8,118,319 B2 - Twisted Structure for a Skateboard dated Feb. 21, 2012

US Patent No. 8,414,000 B2 - One Piece Flexible Skateboard dated Apr. 9, 2013

US Patent No. 8,469,376 B2 - Skateboard dated Jun. 25, 2013

US Patent No. 8,500,145 B2 - Skateboard dated Aug. 6, 2013

US Patent No. 8,738,278 B2 - Two-Wheel, Self-Balancing Vehicle with Independently Movable Foot Placement Sections dated May 27, 2014

US Patent No. 9,376,155 B2 - Electric Balance Vehicle dated Jun. 28, 2016

US Patent No. 9,403,573 B1 - Hover Board Tricycle dated Aug. 2, 2016

US Patent No. 9,499,228 B2 - Self-Balancing Vehicle Frame dated Nov. 22, 2016

US Patent No. 9,682,732 B2 - Fully Self-Balanced Hands-Free Portable Vehicle dated Jun. 20, 2017

US Patent No. D535,714 S - Roller Skate dated Jan. 23, 2007

US Patent No. D601,922 S - Two Wheel Folding Automobile dated Oct. 13, 2009 

US Patent No. D647,991 S - Skateboard dated Nov. 1, 2011

US Patent No. D737,723 S - Self-Balancing Vehicle dated Sep. 1, 2015

US Patent No. D738,256 S - Self-Balancing Vehicle dated Sept. 8, 2015

US Patent No. D739,906 S - Two-Wheeled Vehicle dated Sep. 29, 2015

Possible exhibits.pdf

PRESS RELEASE - Global Hoverboard Scooters Market Size 2020 By Future Strategic Planning, Investment Trend, Key Drivers, Product and Service, Growth Factors, Opportunities, Volume and 

Growth Rate till 2024 dated July 22, 2020

Stannum Target Market Size 2020: Covid-19 Impact Analysis by Industry Trends, Future Demands, Growth Factors, Emerging Technologies, Prominent Players, Future Plans and Forecast till 2026 

dated September 11, 2020

March 1, 2016 Fortune Magazine article titled: “Boom! Goes The Hoverboard Fad” at 94

Business Wire "Global $1.8 Billion Hoverboard Market Competition Forecast & Opportunities, 2021 - Research and Markets" dated November 18, 2016

Press Release - Hoverboard Scooters Market : Rising Trends with Top Countries Data, Technology and Business Outlook 2020 to 2026 dated October 1, 2020

Wall Street Journal "Hoverboard Safety Concerns Create Challenge for Retailers, Regulators" dated October 1, 2020 - https://www.wsj.com/articles/hoverboard-safety-concerns-create-challenge-forretailers-regulators-1450392552

INDEPENDENT RESEARCH:

Global Hoverboard Scooters Market 2020 by Manufacturers, Regions, Type and Application Forecast to 2026 (QYResearch)

WEBSITES:

Transparency Market Research: Self-Balancing Scooter Market – Global Industry Analysis, Size, Share, Growth, Trends and Forecasts 2017 - 2025, Report Digest - 

https://www.transparencymarketresearch.com/self-balancing-scooter-market.html

http://en.chic-robot.com/product/center

http://en.chic-robot.com/product/center/1

http://en.chic-robot.com/product/center/2

www.amazon.com/s?k=uni-sun&ref=nb_sb_noss_2

https://www.amazon.com/SISIGAD-Hoverboard-Balancing-Two-Wheels-Certified/dp/B07KWXZ1JN/ref=sr_1_8?dchild=1&keywords=uni-sun&qid=1603387214&sr=8-8

Page 2 of 4

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 595 Filed: 11/09/22 Page 34 of 46 PageID #:14365
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY

Data and Other Information Considered - as of November 8, 2022

Third Supplemental Attachment 1

EXISTING CASE LAW:

Aro Mfg. Co. v. Convertible Top Replacement Co. , 377 U.S. 476, 507, 84 S.Ct. 1526, 12 L.Ed.2d 457 (1964)

TWM Mfg. Co., v. Dura Corp., 789 F.2d 895, 900-902 (Fed. Cir. 1986)

State Indus., Inc. v. Mor-Flo Indus., Inc., 883 F.2d 1573, 1580 (Fed.Cir.1989)

Polaroid Corp. v. Eastman Kodak Co ., 16 USPQ2d 1481, 1484 (D. Mass. 1990)

Braun Inc. v. Dynamics Corp. of America , 975 F.2d 815, 824, 24 USPQ2d 1121 (C.A.Fed. (Conn.), 1992)

Rite-Hite Corp. v. Kelley Co., 56 F.3d 1538, 1545, 1548-1549 (Fed. Cir. 1995)

Minco, Inc. v. Combustion Eng'g, Inc. , 95 F.3d 1109, 1118 (Fed. Cir. 1996)

Ericsson, Inc., v. D-Link Systems, Inc ., 773 F.3d 1201, 1226 (Fed. Cir. 2014) 

Akamai Techs., Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc ., 805 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2015)

Warsaw Orthopedic, Inc. v. NuVasive, Inc., 778 F.3d 1365, 1375-1376 (Fed. Cir. 2015)

Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc. , 135 S. Ct. 1920 (2016)

Genband US LLC v. Metaswitch Networks Corp. , 861 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2017)

OTHER:

35 U.S.C. § 284

35 U.S.C. § 289

Compensatory Damage Issues in Patent Infringement Cases: A Handbook for Federal District Court Judges 3, Jan. 2010

DATA AND OTHER INFORMATION CONSIDERED - RECEIVED AFTER THE BERO DECLARATION DATED OCTOBER 23, 2020:

ADDITIONAL LEGAL FILINGS:

Third Amended Complaint dated November 17, 2020 with Schedules A-C

ADDITIONAL EXPERT REPORT:

Expert Declaration of Paul Hatch Regarding Infringement of U.S. Patents D737,723, D738,256, D784,195, and D785,112 dated November 12, 2020

ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS WITHOUT BATES STAMPS:

Non-Exclusive Patent License and Covenant Not to Sue Agreement between Hangzhou Chic Intelligent Technology Company Ltd. and eBay, Inc.

ADDITIONAL INDEPENDENT RESEARCH:

ebay Inc.’s Form 10-K for its fiscal year ended December 31, 2019 

WEBSITES:

https://www.amazon.com/SISIGAD-Hoverboard-Balancing-Two-Wheel-Certified/dp/B07KM6WPYC/ref=sr_1_6?dchild=1&keywords=sisigad+hoverboard&qid=1603740626&sr=8-6

http://en.chic-robot.com/product/detail/19111315572000758597257862853632

https://www.industryweek.com/leadership/article/21966360/the-power-of-manufacturers-using-made-in-the-usa-in-marketing

https://www.themadeinamericamovement.com/economy/the-economic-impact-of-made-in-usa/ 

DATA AND OTHER INFORMATION CONSIDERED - RECEIVED AFTER THE SUPPLEMENTAL BERO DECLARATION DATED NOVEMBER 19, 2020:

ADDITIONAL LEGAL FILINGS:

Preliminary Injunction Order dated November 24, 2020

Modified Preliminary Injunction Order dated December 23, 2020

Declaration of Arthur Tan-Chi Yuan in Support of Amendment to Schedule A dated May 6, 2021 with Exhibits 1-3

Declaration of Arthur Tan-Chi Yuan in Support of Motion to Show Cause dated July 13, 2021 

Page 3 of 4

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 595 Filed: 11/09/22 Page 35 of 46 PageID #:14366
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY

Data and Other Information Considered - as of November 8, 2022

Third Supplemental Attachment 1

Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendant Gyroor-US’ Emergency Motion to Dissolve the Preliminary Injunctions dated August 9, 2021 with Exhibits 1-4

Dkt. 359 minute entry dated August 9, 2021

Declaration of Jing Cui in Support of a Declaration of Richard F. Bero dated August 20, 2021

ADDITIONAL EXPERT REPORT:

Expert Declaration of Paul Hatch Regarding Infringement of U.S. Patents D737,723, D738,256, D784,195, and D785,112 dated August 24, 2021

ADDITIONAL INDEPENDENT RESEARCH:

WEBSITES:

http://en.chic-robot.com/product/detail/19111315572000758597257862853632

http://en.chic-robot.com/product/detail/19111315584500758597971481736192

https://www.amazon.com/SISIGAD-Hoverboard-Balancing-Two-Wheel-Certified/dp/B07KM6WPYC/ref=sr_1_6?dchild=1&keywords=sisigad+hoverboard&qid=1603740626&sr=8-6

http://en.chic-robot.com/product/center/1

http://en.chic-robot.com/product/center/2

DATA AND OTHER INFORMATION CONSIDERED - RECEIVED AFTER THE SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL BERO DECLARATION DATED AUGUST 24, 2021:

ADDITIONAL LEGAL FILINGS:

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Opinion (Case: 2021-2150) dated October, 28 2022

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Opinion (Case: 2022-1071) dated October, 28 2022

ADDITIONAL DEPOSITION:

Deposition of Richard F. Bero dated February 22, 2022

ADDITIONAL EXPERT REPORT:

Expert Declaration of Paul Hatch Regarding Infringement of U.S. Patents D737,723 and D738,256 dated November 8, 2022

Any additional documents, websites, or other information referenced throughout this report.

Page 4 of 4

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 595 Filed: 11/09/22 Page 36 of 46 PageID #:14367
THIRD SUPPLEMENTAL ATTACHMENT 2

RICHARD F. BERO, CPA, CVA

N16 W23217 Stone Ridge Drive, Suite 150, Waukesha, WI 53188

Phone – (262) 522-7922 Fax – (262) 436-2444

rbero@berogroup.com

PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE:

The BERO Group / Corporate Financial Advisors, LLC

Managing Director

Waukesha, Wisconsin December 1995-Present

Mr. Bero founded Corporate Financial Advisors in 1995 and served as Managing Director. The 

BERO Group evolved from Corporate Financial Advisors and Mr. Bero serves as Managing 

Director. Mr. Bero provides financial and accounting consulting services and expert testimony 

pertaining to valuation issues and financial damages issues.

Coopers & Lybrand

Manager – Litigation & Claims Services

Milwaukee, Wisconsin 1994-1995

Mr. Bero was the Manager and Practice Leader of the Coopers & Lybrand Milwaukee Litigation 

& Claims Services practice. 

Peterson Consulting Limited Partnership

Executive Consultant

Milwaukee, Wisconsin 1989-1994

Chicago, Illinois 1987-1989

Mr. Bero provided litigation and business dispute support services to trial attorneys and 

corporate counsel.

EDUCATION:

University of Wisconsin–Madison 1986

Bachelor of Business Administration

Accounting and Finance

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 595 Filed: 11/09/22 Page 37 of 46 PageID #:14368
2

ACTIVITIES/OTHER:

Intellectual Property Valuation Instructor – National Association of Certified Valuation Analysts

Licensing Executives Society – Co-Chair Wisconsin Chapter – 2006-2008

Intellectual Property Owners Association – Damages Committee Member – 2004-present

National Association of Certified Valuation Analysts, CVA

Wisconsin Institute of Certified Public Accountants:

Board of Directors – 2000-2002 

Chairman CPA’s In Industry – Committee 1997-1999

Outstanding Committee Chairperson Award – 1997-1998 

American Institute of Certified Public Accountants

Becker CPA Review – Instructor 1995-1998

EXPERT WITNESS TESTIMONY – LAST FOUR YEARS:

Condair Group AG v. Dri-Steem Corporation

United States District Court – U.S. District of Minnesota 

Case No. 0:21-cv-00863 (filed 3/29/21)

September 2022 (Deposition Testimony)

Don Lee Farms, a division of Goodman Food Products, Inc., v. Beyond Meat Inc., et al.

State of California – Los Angeles County 

Case No. BC662838 (filed 5/25/17)

April 2022 (Deposition Testimony)

G.W. Lisk Company, Inc. v. Power Packer North America, Inc. d/b/a GITS Manufacturing Company

United States District Court – Southern District of Iowa

Case No. 4:17-cv-00273 (filed 7/21/17)

April 2022 (Deposition Testimony)

ABC Corporation I et al v. The Partnership and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule "A"

United States District Court – Northern District of Illinois

Case No. 1:20-cv-04806 (filed 8/17/20)

February 2022 (Deposition Testimony)

Sartin et al. v. Chula Vista Inc. et al.

United States District Court – Eastern District of Wisconsin

Case No. 2:18-cv-01890-WED (filed 11/30/18)

October 2021 (Deposition Testimony)

Cyntec Company, Ltd. v. Chilisin Electronics Corp. and Chilisin America Ltd.

United States District Court – Northern District of California

Case No. 4:18-cv-00939-PJH (filed 2/14/18)

August 2021 (Trial Testimony)

June 2020 (Deposition Testimony)

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 595 Filed: 11/09/22 Page 38 of 46 PageID #:14369
3

Wudi Industrial (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. v. Wai L. Wong

United States District Court – Eastern District of Virginia

Case No. 1:20-cv-00908-CMH-MSN (filed 8/7/20)

April 2021 (Deposition Testimony)

Vermeer Corporation v. The Toro Company

United States District Court – Southern District of Iowa

Case Nos. 4:17-cv-0076, 4:19-cv-00050 (filed 2/28/17; 2/12/19)

October 2020 (Deposition Testimony)

AOS Holding Company and A.O. Smith Corporation v. Bradford White Corporation

United States District Court – District of Delaware

Case No. 1:18-cv-00412-LPS (filed 3/16/18)

August 2020 (Trial Testimony)

November 2019 (Deposition Testimony)

RAM Group, Inc. v. H5G, LLC

State of Wisconsin – Milwaukee County

Case No. 2018CV010102 (filed 12/10/18)

June 2020 (Deposition Testimony)

Dimensions Events LLC v. Danziger USA

Chicago Rabbinical Council (DT #17-09)

May 2019 (Arbitration Hearing Testimony)

May 2019 (Deposition Testimony)

Smart Solar, Inc. d/b/a Smart Living Home & Garden v. Sky Billiards, Inc. d/b/a Best Choice Products

United States District Court – Northern District of Illinois

Case No.: 1:17-cv-04211 (filed 6/2/17)

April 2019 (Deposition Testimony)

Gold & Levy d/b/a Rosseto v. Cal-Mil Plastic Products, Inc., et al.

United States District Court – Northern District of Illinois

Case No.: 1:17-cv-00786-JBG-YBK (filed 1/31/17)

December 2018 (Deposition Testimony)

Adams Outdoor Advertising Limited Partnership vs. City of Madison et al.

United States District Court – Western District of Wisconsin

Case No.: 3:17-cv-00576-JDP (filed 7/25/17)

July 2018 (Deposition Testimony)

Dodles, Inc. vs. OMNI Resources, Inc.

State of Wisconsin – Milwaukee County

Case No.: 2017CV002826 (filed 4/5/17)

June 2018 (Deposition Testimony)

Cave Consulting Group, Inc. v OptumInsight, Inc.

United States District Court – Northern District of California

Case No. 3:15-cv-03424-JCS (filed 7/24/15)

May 2018 (Deposition Testimony)

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 595 Filed: 11/09/22 Page 39 of 46 PageID #:14370
4

Nox Medical Ehf v. Natus Neurology Inc.

United States District Court – District of Delaware

Case No. 1:15-cv-00709-RGA (filed 8/17/15)

May 2018 (Trial Testimony)

Solutran, Inc. v. U.S. Bancorp, et al.

United States District Court – District of Minnesota

Case No. 0:13-cv-02637-SRN-BRT (filed 9/25/13)

March 2018 (Trial Testimony)

December 2016 (Deposition Testimony)

PUBLICATIONS:

The Comprehensive Guide to Economic Damages, “Patent Infringement Damages: Lost Profits and 

Royalties”, “Design Patent Damages” and “Trade Secret Damages” (Chapters 28, 29 and 30, 2020 6th 

ed., Business Valuation Resources, LLC) 

Bero, Richard. The Litigator’s Damages Blueprint: The Pragmatic Solution. Wisconsin: 422 Doty, 

LLC, 2019

The Comprehensive Guide to Economic Damages, “Patent Infringement Damages: Lost Profits and 

Royalties” and “Trade Secret Damages” (Chapters 26 and 27, 2018 5

th ed., BVR Publications)

The Comprehensive Guide to Economic Damages, “Patent Infringement Damages: Lost Profits and 

Royalties” (Chapter 26, 2016 4th ed., BVR Publications)

The Comprehensive Guide to Lost Profits and Other Commercial Damages, “Patent Infringement 

Damages: Lost Profits and Royalties” (Chapter 25, 2014 3

rd ed., BVR Publications)

April 2011 – CCH Business Valuation Alert, “The Uniloc Case: 25 Percent Rule of Thumb Rejected”

The Comprehensive Guide to Lost Profits, “Lost Profits Damages in Patent Infringement Lawsuits” 

(Chapter 19, 2011 ed., BVR Publications)

August 2009 – IP Law360 – “Demand for the Patented Product – Lower Bar?”

The Comprehensive Guide to Lost Profits, “Lost Profits Damages in Patent Infringement Lawsuits” 

(Chapter 12, 2009 ed., BVR Publications)

October 2008 – AIPLA White Paper – “Constructing Royalty Rates”

February 2008 – IP Law360 – “IP Litigation in China and the U.S.”

Global Intellectual Property Asset Management Report, “Intellectual Property Metrics Today: It 

Can Be Done” (June 2005 and July 2005)

Proving and Pricing Construction Claims, “Claims for Lost Profit” (Chapter 14, 2nd ed., 1996, 

Wiley Law Publications)

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 595 Filed: 11/09/22 Page 40 of 46 PageID #:14371
5

PRESENTATIONS:

November 2021 Business Valuation Resources, LLC

BVR's Special Series on New Economic Damages Guide

Patent Royalty Damages – What’s the Approach?

Co-Presenter: John L. Abramic, Steptoe & Johnson LLP

May 2021 Business Valuation Resources, LLC

National Economic Damages Virtual Conference 2021 (Day 1)

Patent Infringement Damages

Co-Presenter: Autumn N. Nero, Perkins Coie LLP

November 2020 American Intellectual Property Law Association

Damages Subcommittee – Speaker Series Webinar Part II

The Pragmatic Solution©

May 2020 American Intellectual Property Law Association

Damages Subcommittee – Speaker Series Webinar Part I

The Pragmatic Solution©

February 2020 Marquette Law School

Guest Instructor – IP Litigation Class

Milwaukee, Wisconsin

May 2019 Milwaukee Bar Association

The Pragmatic Solution©

Co-Presenter: Shane Brunner, Milwaukee Best & Friedrich LLP

Milwaukee, Wisconsin

July 2018 Intellectual Property Owners Association – IP Chat Channel Webinar

What’s Next for Design Patent Damages? The DOJ Test on Trial

Co-Presenters: James Dottavio, Ford Motor Company and Elizabeth Ferrill, 

Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP

September 2016 Wisconsin Intellectual Property Law Association

Patent and IP Damages Update

Milwaukee, Wisconsin

December 2015 WestLegalEdcenter Webinar

Recent Patent Royalty Damages Decisions – Update & Discussion

October 2015 WestLegalEdcenter Webinar

Recent Patent Royalty Damages Decisions – Update & Discussion

October 2015 Milwaukee Bar Association

VirnetX and Ericsson – The Latest on Apportionment and Comparable Licenses

Milwaukee, Wisconsin

July 2015 Hot Topics in Patent Royalty Damages Webinar

Business Valuation Resources’ 2015 Special Series on Intellectual Property

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 595 Filed: 11/09/22 Page 41 of 46 PageID #:14372
6

April 2014 Michigan Intellectual Property Law Association

Hot Topics in Patent Damages

Troy, Michigan

May 2013 Hot Topics in Patent Royalty Damages

Business Valuation Resources Online Symposium on Economic Damages: 

Part 3

Chicago, Illinois

September 2011 WestLegalEdcenter Webinar

Recent Patent Damages Decisions – What is the Effect

August 2011 WestLegalEdcenter Webinar

Constructing Royalty Rate Damages

January 2011 The Evolution of the Entire Market Value Rule

Business Valuation Resources Webinar Series on Advanced Topics

in Lost Profits Damages

Chicago, Illinois

September 2010 Patent Damages: Managing the Risks and Contingent Costs

Business Valuation Resources / Morningstar Summit on Best Practices 

in Valuing Intellectual Property

Chicago, Illinois

March 2010 Tianjin Bar Association

Damage Analysis Techniques and Considerations in U.S. Patent Litigations

Tianjin, China

March 2010 Beijing Lawyers Association

Damage Analysis Techniques and Considerations in U.S. Patent Litigations

Beijing, China

December 2009 Milwaukee Bar Association

Constructing Royalty Rate Damages

Milwaukee, Wisconsin

October 2009 Michigan Intellectual Property Law Association

Constructing Royalty Rate Damages

Detroit, Michigan

June 2009 Licensing Executive Society – Chicago Chapter

Constructing Royalty Rates

Chicago, Illinois

March 2009 Milwaukee Bar Association

Patent Infringement Damages – Working Effectively With Your 

Damages Expert

Milwaukee, Wisconsin

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 595 Filed: 11/09/22 Page 42 of 46 PageID #:14373
7

January 2009 Wisconsin Intellectual Property Law Association

Constructing Royalty Rates

Milwaukee, Wisconsin

November 2008 Licensing Executive Society – Minnesota Chapter

Constructing Royalty Rates

Minneapolis, Minnesota

October 2008 American Intellectual Property Law Association – Annual Meeting

Constructing Royalty Rates

Washington, D.C.

October 2008 Minnesota Intellectual Property Law Association

Constructing Royalty Rates

Minneapolis, Minnesota

June 2008 Presentation to Judges and IP attorneys in China

The Development of Patent Damages

Shenzhen, China

May 2008 Licensing Executive Society International – Spring Conference

Avoiding Intellectual Property Hurdles in the U.S. - The View from China

Roundtable Moderator

Chicago, Illinois

March 2008 Marquette Law School

Royalty Damages in Patent Litigation

Guest Instructor – IP Litigation Class

Milwaukee, Wisconsin

October 2007 Guarding the Treasure: IP Valuation & Remedies Panelist

Sponsored by Foley & Lardner 

New York, New York

October 2007 Shanghai Bar Association

Patent Litigation & Valuation – Real World Examples in the U.S.

Shanghai, China

October 2007 Shenzhen Society of Certified Public Appraisers

Intellectual Property, Valuation and Damages Analysis – Real World

Examples in the U.S.

Shenzhen, China

May 2007 Shanghai Intellectual Property Service Center

Intellectual Property in the U.S.: Opportunities, Valuation & Litigation

Shanghai, China

May 2007 Shenzhen Bar Association

Managing and Understanding the Value of IP – Real World Examples 

in the U.S.

Shenzhen, China

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 595 Filed: 11/09/22 Page 43 of 46 PageID #:14374
8

October 2006 China Hi-Tech Fair 2006

Protection of Chinese Intellectual Property in the U.S. Patent Damages & Ways 

to Avoid Infringement

Shenzhen, China

August 2006 Nanshan Sub-Bureau of Intellectual Property Administration

 Intellectual Property Value Issues in the United States an Overview 

for Chinese Businesses

Shenzhen, China

March 2006 Milwaukee Bar Association

Hindsight is 20/20: Developing & Presenting Damages in Intellectual Property 

Litigation and Complex Litigation

Milwaukee, Wisconsin

December 2005 Wisconsin Intellectual Property Law Association

Intellectual Property Damages Update & Discussion

Pewaukee, Wisconsin

October 2005 Licensing Executives Society – Annual Meeting

Facilitator: Advanced Practices Working Session III: To Sue or Not? 

How to Decide

Phoenix, Arizona

September 2005 Digital Fabrication 2005 Seminar

Panel Discussion: Intellectual Property

Baltimore, Maryland

September 2005 Intellectual Property Owner’s Annual Meeting 

Patent Infringement Damages Update and Discussion

Seattle, Washington

April 2005 Licensing Executives Society – Wisconsin Chapter

What’s Reasonable: Royalty Damages in Patent Litigation

Fond Du Lac, Wisconsin

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 595 Filed: 11/09/22 Page 44 of 46 PageID #:14375
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY

S

NOTES / SOURCES:

Note: Any minor differences are due to rounding.

[1]

January 1, 2019 - December 11, 2019 January 1, 2020 - September 30, 2020 Total

Page 1 of 1

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 595 Filed: 11/09/22 Page 45 of 46 PageID #:14376
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on November 9, 2022, a true and correct redacted copy of the

foregoing document was filed with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF which will generate

and serve a Notice of Electronic Filing to all parties to this action. Unredacted copies have been

served on all parties to this action via e-mail service on November 9, 2022.

Dated: November 9, 2022

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

TARTER KRINSKY & DROGIN LLP

By: /s/ Richard J.L. Lomuscio

Richard J.L. Lomuscio

Mark Berkowitz

1350 Broadway

New York, NY 10018

Tel.: (212) 216-8000

Fax: (212) 216-8001

E-mail: rlomuscio@tarterkrinsky.com

E-mail: mberkowitz@tarterkrinsky.com

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 595 Filed: 11/09/22 Page 46 of 46 PageID #:14377