1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

ABC Corporation I et al,

Plaintiff,

v.

THE PARTNERSHIPS and 

UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATIONS 

IDENTIFIED ON SCHEDULE “A”,

Defendants.

CASE NO. 1:20-cv-04806 

Judge: Honorable Thomas M. Durkin

DEFENDANT GAODESHANG-US’ ANSWER

TO COMPLAINT, AFFIRMTIVE DEFENSES AND COUNTERCLAIMS

NOW COME Defendant Gaodeshang-US, by and through its attorney, submit its Answer to 

the Third Amended Complaint filed by the Plaintiffs and states as follows:

ANSWER TO COMPALINT

I. IN ANSWER TO THE ALLEGATIONS OF 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.

Answer: Admitted that Plaintiffs filed this action for patent infringement under the United States 

patent laws. Defendant otherwise denies any infringement of any valid and enforceable claim of any 

patent identified in the Third Amended Complaint. 

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 selfbalancing transport devices known as hoverboards shown in Exhibit 1, that infringe Plaintiffs’

patented designs (“Infringing Products”). Defendants create e-commerce stores operating under one

or more seller aliases or fictitious names identified in Schedule A, Schedule B, and Schedule C that

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 464 Filed: 10/21/21 Page 1 of 35 PageID #:12755
2

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.

Answer: Defendant denies the allegations of this paragraph in their entirety for lack of knowledge as 

to the activities of other defendants, and specifically denies that it engaged in any conduct 

constituting infringement of any valid and enforceable claim of any patent identified in the Third 

Amended Complaint.

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.

Answer: Defendant denies the allegations of this paragraph in their entirety, and specifically denies 

that it engaged in any conduct constituting infringement of any valid and enforceable claim of any 

patent identified in the Third Amended Complaint.

II. IN ANSWER TO THE ALLEGATIONS OF 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).

Answer: Admitted that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the claims asserted in Plaintiffs’

Third Amended Complaint.

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

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 464 Filed: 10/21/21 Page 2 of 35 PageID #:12756
3

toward consumers in the United States, including Illinois, through at least the fully interactive, ecommerce stores, operating under the Defendants 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 of more Defendants

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 and features

to residents of Illinois. Each of the Defendants are committing tortious acts in Illinois, engaging in

interstate commerce, and have wrongfully caused Plaintiffs substantial injury in Illinois.

Answer: Defendant denies the allegations of this paragraph in their entirety, and specifically denies 

any infringement of any valid and enforceable claim of any patent identified in the Third Amended 

Complaint and denies that it has conducted any acts in this forum that subject them to specific or 

general jurisdiction as alleged.

III. IN ANSWER TO THE ALLEGATIONS OF 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.

Answer: Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny the truth of such 

allegations, and accordingly denies.

7. Chic designs and sells hoverboards, among other technologies, which incorporate the Patents-in-Suit

(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.

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 464 Filed: 10/21/21 Page 3 of 35 PageID #:12757
4

Answer: Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny the truth of such 

allegations, and accordingly denies

8. Plaintiff Unicorn is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of California, having its

principal place of business in 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.

Answer: Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny the truth of such 

allegations, and accordingly denies.

9. Defendants are individuals and business entities of unknown makeup who own and/or operate one or

more Defendants 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, Defendants reside and/or

operate in the People’s Republic of China or act as an entity from a foreign jurisdiction 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).

Answer: Defendant admits that it owns and/or operates one of the storefronts identified in Schedule 

A and that it resides and/or operates in the People’s Republic of China. Defendant is without 

sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny the truth of the remaining allegations, and 

accordingly denies.

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.

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 464 Filed: 10/21/21 Page 4 of 35 PageID #:12758
5

Answer: Defendant admits that it does not substantial contacts within the United States and is a 

foreign entity operating an Amazon storefront. Defendant denies the remaining allegations of this 

paragraph.

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 Defendants Internet Stores and selling Infringing

Products.

Answer: Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny the truth of such 

allegations, and accordingly denies.

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.

Answer: Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny the truth of such 

allegations, and accordingly denies.

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

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

provide additional credible information regarding their identities, Plaintiffs will take appropriate

steps to amend the Complaint.

Answer: Defendant admits that it owns and/or operates an Amazon storefront identified in amended 

Schedule A. Defendant denies the remaining allegations in this paragraph.

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 464 Filed: 10/21/21 Page 5 of 35 PageID #:12759
6

IV. IN ANSWER TO THE ALLEGATIONS OF 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.

Answer: Defendant admits the Patents-in-Suit attached to Third Amended Complaint as Exhibit 2 

identifies Hangzhou Chic Intelligent Co., Ltd. as the Assignee. Defendant is without sufficient 

knowledge or information to admit or deny the remaining and accordingly denies.

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

Answer: Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny the allegations, 

and accordingly denies.

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

September 1, 2015 and September 8, 2015, respectively.

Answer: Admitted as this information is shown in the Exhibit 2 to the Third Amended Complaint.

17. Admitted as this table is shown in the Exhibit 2 to the Third Amended Complaint.

18. Admitted as this table is shown in the Exhibit 2 to the Third Amended Complaint.

19. Both the ’D195 patent and the ’D112 patent are entitled “Human-Machine Interaction Vehicle,” and

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

Answer: Admitted as this information is shown in the Exhibit 2 to the Third Amended Complaint.

20. Admitted as this table is shown in the Exhibit 2 to the Third Amended Complaint.

21. Admitted as this table is shown in the Exhibit 2 to the Third Amended Complaint.

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

and interest to the patents to Chic.

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 464 Filed: 10/21/21 Page 6 of 35 PageID #:12760
7

Answer: As shown in the Exhibit 2 to the Third Amended Complaint, Defendant admits the four 

Patents-in-Suit identify Jiawei Ying as the Inventor. Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or 

information to admit or deny the remaining allegations of the paragraph and accordingly denies. 

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

Patents-in-Suit, including Plaintiffs’ Products.

Answer: Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny the allegations, 

and accordingly denies.

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.

Answer: Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny the allegations, 

and accordingly denies.

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.

Answer: Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny the allegations, 

and accordingly denies.

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.

Answer: Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny the allegations,

and accordingly denies.

27. Plaintiffs have identified numerous e-commerce stores, including Defendants Internet Stores, that

offer for sale and/or selling Infringing Products to consumers in this Judicial District and throughout

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 464 Filed: 10/21/21 Page 7 of 35 PageID #:12761
8

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.

Answer: Defendant denies that it offered for sale and/or sold products to consumers in this Judicial 

District and throughout the United States that infringed any valid and enforceable claim of any patent 

identified in the Third Amended Complaint. Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or 

information to admit or deny the remaining allegations of the paragraph, and accordingly denies.

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.

Answer: Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny the allegations,

and accordingly denies.

29. Defendants have targeted sales to Illinois residents by setting up and operating e- commerce stores

that target United States consumers using one or more Defendants Internet Stores.

Answer: Denied.

30. Upon information and belief, Defendants have sold and are selling Infringing Products on their ecommerce website, offered and are offering shipping to the United States, including Illinois, and are 

accepting payment in U.S. dollars.

Answer: Defendant denies that it has sold and is selling products to consumers on an e-commerce 

website that infringe any valid and enforceable claim of any patent identified in the Third Amended 

Complaint, or that it offered and is offering shipping of products to the United States, including 

Illinois, that infringe any valid and enforceable claim of any patent identified in the Third Amended 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 464 Filed: 10/21/21 Page 8 of 35 PageID #:12762
9

Complaint, or that it accepted and is accepting payment in U.S. dollars for products that infringe any 

valid and enforceable claim of any patent identified in the Third Amended Complaint. Defendant is

without sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny the remaining allegations of the 

paragraph, and accordingly denies. 

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 

Defendants Internet Stores so that they appear to unknowing consumers to be authorized online 

retailers, outlet stores, or wholesalers. Defendants Internet Stores often include content and images 

that make it difficult for consumers to distinguish such stores from an authorized retailer. In addition, 

Defendants Internet Stores appear sophisticated and accept payment in U.S. dollars via credit cards, 

Paypal, and/or Amazon Pay, for example.

Answer: Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny the allegations, 

and accordingly denies.

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

authorized retailers of genuine Plaintiffs’ Products.

Answer: Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny the allegations, 

and accordingly denies.

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

Defendants Internet Stores by providing false, misleading and/or incomplete information to ecommerce platforms.

Answer: Defendant denies the allegations that it engaged in fraudulent conduct of any kind when 

registering its internet storefront. Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to 

admit or deny the remaining allegations of the paragraph, and accordingly denies.

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 e- commerce operation.

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 464 Filed: 10/21/21 Page 9 of 35 PageID #:12763
10

Answer: Defendant denies that it anonymously registered and maintained seller aliases to prevent 

others from learning their true identities and the scope of their e-commerce operation. Defendant is 

without sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny the remaining allegations of the 

paragraph, and accordingly denies. 

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.

Answer: Defendant denies that it regularly registered or acquired new seller aliases for the purpose 

of offering for sale and selling any Infringing products. Defendant further denies it uses such 

registration patterns as one of many tactics to conceal its identity and the interworking of their 

operation, as well as to avoid being shut down. Defendant denies that it has sold and is selling 

products to consumers on an e-commerce website that infringe any valid and enforceable claim of 

any patent identified in the Third Amended Complaint. Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or 

information to admit or deny the remaining allegations of the paragraph, and accordingly denies.

36. Despite operating under multiple fictitious aliases, the Defendants 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.

Answer: Denied.

37. Infringing Products sold by the Defendants Internet Stores bear similar irregularities and indicia of

being unauthorized to one another, suggesting that Defendants are interrelated and that the Infringing

Products come from and were manufactured by a common source.

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 464 Filed: 10/21/21 Page 10 of 35 PageID #:12764
11

Answer: Denied. In addition, Defendant denies that it has sold and is selling products to consumers 

on an e-commerce website that infringe any valid and enforceable claim of any patent identified in 

the Third Amended Complaint.

38. On information and belief, 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.

Answer: Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny the allegations, 

and accordingly denies.

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 into the United States

for subsequent sale or use Infringing Products in the same transaction, occurrence, or series of

transactions or occurrences.

Answer: Denied. In addition, Defendant denies that it has made, used, offered for sale, sells, and/or 

imports into the United States any products that infringe any valid and enforceable claim of any 

patent identified in the Third Amended Complaint.

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.

Answer: Denied. In addition, Defendant denies that it has made, used, offered for sale, sells, and/or 

imports into the United States any products that infringe any valid and enforceable claim of any 

patent identified in the Third Amended Complaint. 

V. IN ANSWER TO THE ALLEGATIONS OF 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.

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 464 Filed: 10/21/21 Page 11 of 35 PageID #:12765
12

Answer: Defendant realleges and adopts for reference herein their answers to Paragraphs 1-40 of the 

Third Amended Complaint as though fully set forth herein. 

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.

Answer: Denied.

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 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.

Answer: Denied.

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

Defendants’ profits under 35 U.S.C. § 289. Plaintiffs are also entitled to recover any other damages

as appropriate under 35 U.S.C. § 284.

Answer: Denied.

VI. IN ANSWER TO THE ALLEGATIONS OF 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.

Answer: Defendant realleges and adopts for reference herein their answers to Paragraphs 1-44 of the 

Third Amended Complaint as though fully set forth herein. 

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.

Answer: Denied.

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

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 464 Filed: 10/21/21 Page 12 of 35 PageID #:12766
13

irreparable harm resulting from the loss of control of thier 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.

Answer: Denied.

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

Defendants’ profits under 35 U.S.C. § 289. Plaintiffs are also entitled to recover any other damages

as appropriate under 35 U.S.C. § 284.

Answer: Denied.

VII. IN ANSWER TO THE ALLEGATIONS OF 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.

Answer: Defendant realleges and adopts for reference herein their answers to Paragraphs 1-49 of the 

Third Amended Complaint as though fully set forth herein. 

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.

Answer: Denied.

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 thier 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.

Answer: Denied.

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

Defendants’ profits under 35 U.S.C. § 289. Plaintiffs are also entitled to recover any other damages

as appropriate under 35 U.S.C. § 284.

Answer: Denied.

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 464 Filed: 10/21/21 Page 13 of 35 PageID #:12767
14

VIII. IN ANSWER TO THE ALLEGATIONS OF 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.

Answer: Defendant realleges and adopts for reference herein their answers to Paragraphs 1-54 of the 

Third Amended Complaint as though fully set forth herein. 

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.

Answer: Denied.

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.

Answer: Denied.

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

Defendants’ profits under 35 U.S.C. § 289. Plaintiffs are also entitled to recover any other damages

as appropriate under 35 U.S.C. § 284.

Answer: Denied.

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 464 Filed: 10/21/21 Page 14 of 35 PageID #:12768
15

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

Defendant affirmatively asserts the following defense:

1. Defendant’s Accused Product (ASIN No. B08R23QQT8 “Gyroor Product B”, identified in Dkt. No. 

227-3, p. 4 of 4) has not infringed, and are not infringing, directly or indirectly by inducement, any valid 

and enforceable claim contained in U.S. Patent Nos. D737,723, D738,256, D785,112, and D784,195 

(collectively “the Patents-in-Suit”).

2. Plaintiffs allege that the Patents-in-Suit [Dkt. No. 101, ¶14; Dkt No. 101-13] have been infringed by the

Accused Product. However, Plaintiffs made no allegations against Defendant or the Gyroor Product B in 

the Third Amended Complaint. [Dkt. No. 101]. Plaintiffs made no specific allegations aside from stating 

that “Gaodeshang-US store is related to or affiliated with Gyroor-US” [Dkt. No. 227-1, ¶19], which is 

unsupported by any evidence.

3. The “hypothetical ordinary observer who is conversant with the prior art” standard obviously applies

here. A person with “little or no experience” with hoverboards clearly does not satisfy the ordinary

observer test in the present case. Therefore, in light of the many similar prior art designs, the

hypothetical ordinary observer in this case should be a purchaser who is familiar with hoverboards and

the prior art designs.

4. In the most recent landmark case Lanard Toys, Ltd. v. Dolgencorp LLC, 958 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir 2020),

The Feder Circuit prescribe that:

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

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

between the claimed and accused design are viewed in light of the prior art, the attention 

of the hypothetical ordinary observer will be drawn to those aspects of the claimed 

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

art designs, small differences between the accused design and the claimed design are 

likely to be important to the eye of the hypothetical ordinary observer.” Id. (quoting 

Egyptian Goddess, 543 F.3d at 676).

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 464 Filed: 10/21/21 Page 15 of 35 PageID #:12769
16

5. The Patents-in-Suit and the U.S. Design Patent D739,906 Patent (hereinafter, “D’906”) are very close 

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

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

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

shape.

6. Under 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(2), prior art includes “a patent issued under section 151, or in an application 

for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as 

the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of 

the claimed invention.”

Patents Application Filing Date Effective Filing Date

Prior Art - D’906 Patent 03/12/2013 03/12/2013

Patents-in-Suit (D’723 Patent) 12/15/2014 12/15/2014

Patents-in-Suit (D’256 Patent) 12/15/2014 12/15/2014

Patents-in-Suit (D’195 Patent) 02/29/2016 02/29/2016

Patents-in-Suit (D’112 Patent) 02/29/2016 02/29/2016

7. Here, the application of the D’906 Patent was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the 

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

8. This “hourglass” peripheral shape was first disclosed and claimed in the prior art — the D’906 Patent.

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

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

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

sharp edges.” Id.

9. The “revolutionary design” was already claimed in the prior art D’906 Patent. Plaintiffs did not invent

the hourglass shape of hoverboards. Therefore, in light of the D’906 Patent, an ordinary observer will

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

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 464 Filed: 10/21/21 Page 16 of 35 PageID #:12770
17

Table 1 — Comparison of Overall Hourglass Shape

Patents-in-Suit

D’723 Patent

Patents-in-Suit

D’256 Patent

Patents-in-Suit

D’195 Patent

Patents-in-Suit

D’112 Patent

Prior Aart 

D’906 Patent

Gyroor Product B

Substantially Similar Patent 

D’856 Patent

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 464 Filed: 10/21/21 Page 17 of 35 PageID #:12771
18

Table. 2 — Comparison of Overall Shape – Front View

Patents-in-Suit

D’723 Patent

Patents-in-Suit

D’256 Patent

Patents-in-Suit

D’195 Patent

Patents-in-Suit

D’112 Patent

Prior Art 

D’906 Patent

Gyroor Product B

Substantially Similar Patent 

D’856 Patent

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

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

contour, while the corresponding center portion of the top surface of the design of Gyroor “B” 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 464 Filed: 10/21/21 Page 18 of 35 PageID #:12772
19

hoverboard is substantially flat and slightly recessed down below the opposing outer foot surfaces.” 

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

11. Under the “ordinary observer” test, a court must consider the ornamental features [of each element] 

and analyze how they impact the overall design.” Lanard, 958 F.3d at 1343-44 (citing Richardson v. 

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

12. “While the ‘ordinary observer’ test is not an element-by-element comparison,” it also does not ignore 

the reality that designs can, and often do, have both functional and ornamental aspects. Id. (citing

Amini Innovation Corp. v. Anthony Cal., Inc., 439 F.3d 1365, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). Analyzing the 

ornamental features is necessary to determine how the ornamental differences in each element would 

impact the ordinary observer's perception of the overall designs. Id. 

13. The ornamental features of each element in the Gyroor Product B are based on the claimed design of the 

U.S. D808,856 Patent.

14. An ordinary observer would consider the Gyroor Product B to be substantially similar to the D’856

Patent. [Dkt. No. 376, Decl. of Rake, ¶188]. In contrast, no ordinary observer would consider Gyroor 

Product B is substantially similar to the Patents-in-Suit because none of the Patent-in-Suit claimed any 

ornamental features of the Gyroor Product B.

15. First, none of the Patents-in-Suit claimed foot pad design of the Gyroor Product B. The shape and design 

of the foot pads of the Gyroor Product B are plainly different from the Patents-in-Suit. [Dkt. No. 377, 

Decl. of Gandy, ¶¶71, 77; Dkt. No. 376, Decl. of Rake, ¶¶117,125].

16. Here, D’723 and D’256 Patents both claim the design of straight divergent lines on the foot pads. Neither 

D’195 nor D’112 claims any designs of the foot pads. 

17. The D’856 Patent claimed unique patterns on the foot pads, which are plainly dissimilar from the designs 

of the Patents-in-Suit. The Gyroor Product B has identical foot pad design as D’856 Patent.

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 464 Filed: 10/21/21 Page 19 of 35 PageID #:12773
20

Patents-in-Suit

D’723 Patent

Patents-in-Suit

D’256 Patent

Patents-in-Suit

D’195 Patent

Patents-in-Suit

D’112 Patent

Substantially Similar Patent 

D’856 Patent

Gyroor Product B

18. Second, none of the Patents-in-Suit claimed the wheel covers design of the Gyroor Product B. The 

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

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

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

20. The shape of the wheel covers in the Patents-in-Suit and the prior art D‘906 patent are both semicircular, “while the wheel covers on the design of Gyroor Product ‘B’ hoverboard have opposing 

diagonally straight side edges a substantially flat top edge which curves outwardly. [Dkt. No. 377, Decl. 

of Gandy, ¶¶48, 60, 65]. Therefore, “even to the most casual observer, the differences are significant.” 

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

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 464 Filed: 10/21/21 Page 20 of 35 PageID #:12774
21

Patents-in-Suit

D’723 Patent

Patents-in-Suit

D’256 Patent

Patents-in-Suit

D’195 Patent

Patents-in-Suit

D’112 Patent

Substantially Similar Patent 

D’856 Patent

Gyroor Product B

21. Third, none of the Patents-in-Suit claimed the light design of the Gyroor Product B. The position, shape, and 

size of the lights of the Gyroor Product B are also plainly different from the Patents-in-Suit. None of the 

Patent-in-Suit claimed the light design of the Gyroor Product B.

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

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

23. The light design of the Gyroor Product B features thin narrow strips that curves up to the fenders, which 

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

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 464 Filed: 10/21/21 Page 21 of 35 PageID #:12775
22

Patents-inSuit

D’723 Patent

Patents-inSuit

D’256 Patent

Patents-inSuit

D’195 Patent

Patents-inSuit

D’112 Patent

Gyroor 

Product B

Substantially 

Similar Patent 

D’856 Patent

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 464 Filed: 10/21/21 Page 22 of 35 PageID #:12776
23

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

contrast.” [Dkt. No. 376, Decl. of Rake, ¶25]. Under the Figure-Ground principles, “some shapes or 

contours take a prominent role (figure) while others recede into the background (ground).” Id. at 26.

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

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

significantly impact the ordinary observer's visual perception of the overall designs. [Dkt. No. 376, 

Decl. of Rake, ¶¶93, 99, 105, 111, 175-178]. As a result, the differences between the Patents-in-Suit

and accused design of Gyroor Product B take on greater significance to an ordinary observer. 

26. Consequently, an ordinary observer, taking into account the prior art, would not believe the accused 

design of Gyroor Product B to be the same as the patented design.

27. It is obvious that the D808,856 has a unique design from the Patents-in-Suit.

28. In this case, an ordinary observer will either a) find the Accused Products substantially similar to the 

D’856 patent, which does not infringe the Patents-in-Suit; or b) will be drawn to those aspects of the 

claimed designs of the Patents-in-Suit that differ from the D’856 patent; and those different aspects 

would make the distinctions between the Patents-in-Suit and Accused Products readily apparent to an 

ordinary observer.

29. In light of the D’856 patent, the Gyroor Product B and the Patents-in-Suit are plainly dissimilar.

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 464 Filed: 10/21/21 Page 23 of 35 PageID #:12777
24

COUNTERCLAIMS

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. These are Counterclaims brought by Defendant/Counterclaimant Defendant (“Defendant”), against 

Plaintiffs/Counterdefendant Hangzhou Chic Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd., and Unicorn Global, Inc. 

(collectively “Plaintiffs”) for declaratory judgment that U.S. Patent Nos. D737,723, D738,256, 

D785,112, and D784,195 (collectively “the Patents-in-Suit”) are not infringed, either directly or 

indirectly by inducement, by Defendant’s use, manufacture, sale, and offer for sale of products and 

technology as identified in the Third Amended Complaint. 

2. This Court has jurisdiction over these Counterclaims under the federal question jurisdiction of this 

Court, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a), 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 

U.S.C. § 2201-2202, the patent laws, 35 U.S.C. § 1, et seq., and under Rule 13 of the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure.

3. Venue in this district is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b), in that this case is an action for patent 

infringement arising under the patent laws of the United States and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) 

and (c), as Plaintiffs/Counter defendants have a principal place of business and thereby reside in this 

judicial district, a substantial portion of the events giving rise to these Counterclaims occurred in this 

judicial district, and Plaintiffs are subject to personal jurisdiction of this Court having commenced its 

action in this Court.

THE PARTIES

4. Defendant/Counterclaimant is Chinese company with its principal place of business in China.

5. Defendant has an internet storefront that it uses to sell hoverboards.

6. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff/Counterdefendant Hangzhou Chic Intelligent Technology Co., 

Ltd. (“Hangzhou”) is a Chinese company located in the Liangzhou University Science and 

Technology Park, Yuhang District, Hangzhou, China.

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 464 Filed: 10/21/21 Page 24 of 35 PageID #:12778
25

COUNT I

Declaratory Judgment of Noninfringement

30. Defendant’s Accused Product (ASIN No. B08R23QQT8 “Gyroor Product B”, identified in Dkt. No. 

227-3, p. 4 of 4) has not infringed, and are not infringing, directly or indirectly by inducement, any valid 

and enforceable claim contained in U.S. Patent Nos. D737,723, D738,256, D785,112, and D784,195 

(collectively “the Patents-in-Suit”).

31. Plaintiffs allege that the Patents-in-Suit [Dkt. No. 101, ¶14; Dkt No. 101-13] have been infringed by the

Accused Product. However, Plaintiffs made no allegations against Defendant or the Gyroor Product B in 

the Third Amended Complaint. [Dkt. No. 101]. Plaintiffs made no specific allegations aside from stating 

that “Gaodeshang-US store is related to or affiliated with Gyroor-US” [Dkt. No. 227-1, ¶19], which is 

unsupported by any evidence.

32. The “hypothetical ordinary observer who is conversant with the prior art” standard obviously applies

here. A person with “little or no experience” with hoverboards clearly does not satisfy the ordinary

observer test in the present case. Therefore, in light of the many similar prior art designs, the

hypothetical ordinary observer in this case should be a purchaser who is familiar with hoverboards and

the prior art designs.

33. In the most recent landmark case Lanard Toys, Ltd. v. Dolgencorp LLC, 958 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir 2020),

The Feder Circuit prescribe that:

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

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

between the claimed and accused design are viewed in light of the prior art, the attention 

of the hypothetical ordinary observer will be drawn to those aspects of the claimed 

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

art designs, small differences between the accused design and the claimed design are 

likely to be important to the eye of the hypothetical ordinary observer.” Id. (quoting 

Egyptian Goddess, 543 F.3d at 676).

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 464 Filed: 10/21/21 Page 25 of 35 PageID #:12779
26

34. The Patents-in-Suit and the U.S. Design Patent D739,906 Patent (hereinafter, “D’906”) are very close 

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

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

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

shape.

35. Under 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(2), prior art includes “a patent issued under section 151, or in an application 

for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as 

the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of 

the claimed invention.”

Patents Application Filing Date Effective Filing Date

Prior Art - D’906 Patent 03/12/2013 03/12/2013

Patents-in-Suit (D’723 Patent) 12/15/2014 12/15/2014

Patents-in-Suit (D’256 Patent) 12/15/2014 12/15/2014

Patents-in-Suit (D’195 Patent) 02/29/2016 02/29/2016

Patents-in-Suit (D’112 Patent) 02/29/2016 02/29/2016

36. Here, the application of the D’906 Patent was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the 

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

37. This “hourglass” peripheral shape was first disclosed and claimed in the prior art — the D’906 Patent.

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

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

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

sharp edges.” Id.

38. The “revolutionary design” was already claimed in the prior art D’906 Patent. Plaintiffs did not invent

the hourglass shape of hoverboards. Therefore, in light of the D’906 Patent, an ordinary observer will

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

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 464 Filed: 10/21/21 Page 26 of 35 PageID #:12780
27

Table 1 — Comparison of Overall Hourglass Shape

Patents-in-Suit

D’723 Patent

Patents-in-Suit

D’256 Patent

Patents-in-Suit

D’195 Patent

Patents-in-Suit

D’112 Patent

Prior Aart 

D’906 Patent

Gyroor Product B

Substantially Similar Patent 

D’856 Patent

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 464 Filed: 10/21/21 Page 27 of 35 PageID #:12781
28

Table. 2 — Comparison of Overall Shape – Front View

Patents-in-Suit

D’723 Patent

Patents-in-Suit

D’256 Patent

Patents-in-Suit

D’195 Patent

Patents-in-Suit

D’112 Patent

Prior Art 

D’906 Patent

Gyroor Product B

Substantially Similar Patent 

D’856 Patent

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

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

contour, while the corresponding center portion of the top surface of the design of Gyroor “B” 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 464 Filed: 10/21/21 Page 28 of 35 PageID #:12782
29

hoverboard is substantially flat and slightly recessed down below the opposing outer foot surfaces.” 

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

40. Under the “ordinary observer” test, a court must consider the ornamental features [of each element] 

and analyze how they impact the overall design.” Lanard, 958 F.3d at 1343-44 (citing Richardson v. 

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

41. “While the ‘ordinary observer’ test is not an element-by-element comparison,” it also does not ignore 

the reality that designs can, and often do, have both functional and ornamental aspects. Id. (citing

Amini Innovation Corp. v. Anthony Cal., Inc., 439 F.3d 1365, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). Analyzing the 

ornamental features is necessary to determine how the ornamental differences in each element would 

impact the ordinary observer's perception of the overall designs. Id. 

42. The ornamental features of each element in the Gyroor Product B are based on the claimed design of the 

U.S. D808,856 Patent.

43. An ordinary observer would consider the Gyroor Product B to be substantially similar to the D’856

Patent. [Dkt. No. 376, Decl. of Rake, ¶188]. In contrast, no ordinary observer would consider Gyroor 

Product B is substantially similar to the Patents-in-Suit because none of the Patent-in-Suit claimed any 

ornamental features of the Gyroor Product B.

44. First, none of the Patents-in-Suit claimed foot pad design of the Gyroor Product B. The shape and design 

of the foot pads of the Gyroor Product B are plainly different from the Patents-in-Suit. [Dkt. No. 377, 

Decl. of Gandy, ¶¶71, 77; Dkt. No. 376, Decl. of Rake, ¶¶117,125].

45. Here, D’723 and D’256 Patents both claim the design of straight divergent lines on the foot pads. Neither 

D’195 nor D’112 claims any designs of the foot pads. 

46. The D’856 Patent claimed unique patterns on the foot pads, which are plainly dissimilar from the designs 

of the Patents-in-Suit. The Gyroor Product B has identical foot pad design as D’856 Patent.

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 464 Filed: 10/21/21 Page 29 of 35 PageID #:12783
30

Patents-in-Suit

D’723 Patent

Patents-in-Suit

D’256 Patent

Patents-in-Suit

D’195 Patent

Patents-in-Suit

D’112 Patent

Substantially Similar Patent 

D’856 Patent

Gyroor Product B

47. Second, none of the Patents-in-Suit claimed the wheel covers design of the Gyroor Product B. The 

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

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

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

49. The shape of the wheel covers in the Patents-in-Suit and the prior art D‘906 patent are both semicircular, “while the wheel covers on the design of Gyroor Product ‘B’ hoverboard have opposing 

diagonally straight side edges a substantially flat top edge which curves outwardly. [Dkt. No. 377, Decl. 

of Gandy, ¶¶48, 60, 65]. Therefore, “even to the most casual observer, the differences are significant.” 

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

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 464 Filed: 10/21/21 Page 30 of 35 PageID #:12784
31

Patents-in-Suit

D’723 Patent

Patents-in-Suit

D’256 Patent

Patents-in-Suit

D’195 Patent

Patents-in-Suit

D’112 Patent

Substantially Similar Patent 

D’856 Patent

Gyroor Product B

50. Third, none of the Patents-in-Suit claimed the light design of the Gyroor Product B. The position, shape, and 

size of the lights of the Gyroor Product B are also plainly different from the Patents-in-Suit. None of the 

Patent-in-Suit claimed the light design of the Gyroor Product B.

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

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

52. The light design of the Gyroor Product B features thin narrow strips that curves up to the fenders, which 

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

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 464 Filed: 10/21/21 Page 31 of 35 PageID #:12785
32

Patents-inSuit

D’723 Patent

Patents-inSuit

D’256 Patent

Patents-inSuit

D’195 Patent

Patents-inSuit

D’112 Patent

Gyroor 

Product B

Substantially 

Similar Patent 

D’856 Patent

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 464 Filed: 10/21/21 Page 32 of 35 PageID #:12786
33

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

contrast.” [Dkt. No. 376, Decl. of Rake, ¶25]. Under the Figure-Ground principles, “some shapes or 

contours take a prominent role (figure) while others recede into the background (ground).” Id. at 26.

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

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

significantly impact the ordinary observer's visual perception of the overall designs. [Dkt. No. 376, 

Decl. of Rake, ¶¶93, 99, 105, 111, 175-178]. As a result, the differences between the Patents-in-Suit

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

55. Consequently, an ordinary observer, taking into account the prior art, would not believe the accused 

design to be the same as the patented design.

56. Defendants further incorporates its Motion for Summary Judgement of Noninfringement [Dkt. No. 

110] in support of its noninfringement defense.

57. It is obvious that the D808,856 has a unique design from the Patents-in-Suit.

58. In this case, an ordinary observer will either a) find the Accused Products substantially similar to the 

D’856 patent, which does not infringe the Patents-in-Suit; or b) will be drawn to those aspects of the 

claimed designs of the Patents-in-Suit that differ from the D’856 patent; and those different aspects 

would make the distinctions between the Patents-in-Suit and Accused Products readily apparent to an 

ordinary observer.

59. In light of the D’856 patent, the Accused Products and the Patents-in-Suit are plainly dissimilar.

60. Plaintiffs brought and continued this suit with the knowledge that Defendant’s products do not infringe 

any claims of the Patents-in-Suit, or without conducting an investigation that was reasonable under the 

circumstances to determine whether Defendants’ products allegedly infringed any claims of the Patentsin-Suit.

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 464 Filed: 10/21/21 Page 33 of 35 PageID #:12787
34

61. Plaintiffs brought this suit for the improper purpose of excluding Defendant’s noninfringing product 

from the market by unnecessarily delaying and expanding this action by amending and adding products 

with or without the Court’s approval.

DEFENDANTS’ PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Defendants pray that 

1. Plaintiffs be denied all relief against Defendant;

2. The Accused Product does not infringe the Patents-in-Suit;

3. Plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint be dismissed with prejudice and judgment entered in 

favor of Defendant;

4. Plaintiff takes nothing by way of this action; 

5. Defendant be awarded compensatory and punitive damages;

6. Defendant be awarded costs of suit, attorneys’ fees and any other relief which the Court 

deems proper.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Defendants demands a jury trial on any issue triable of right by jury.

Date: 10/21/2021 /s/ Tianyu Ju 

Tianyu Ju,

Iris.Ju@glacier.law

Glacier Law PLLC

200 E. Randolph Dr., Ste. 5100

Chicago, IL 60601

Tao Liu,

Tao.Liu@glacier.law

He Cheng,

Robin.Cheng@glacier.law

Glacier Law PLLC

200 Park Avenue, Suite1703 

New York, NY 10166

Attorney for Defendant

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 464 Filed: 10/21/21 Page 34 of 35 PageID #:12788
35

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this October 21, 2021, I electronically filed the foregoing file 

with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system, and service was perfected on all counsel of record 

and interested parties through this system, which will deliver a true and correct copy of the foregoing 

documents via CM/ECF.

Date: 10/21/2021 /s/ Tianyu Ju 

Tianyu Ju, Esq.

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 464 Filed: 10/21/21 Page 35 of 35 PageID #:12789