1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

ABC Corporation I et al,Plaintif , v. THE PARTNERSHIPS and

UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATIONS

IDENTIFIED ON SCHEDULE “A”, Defendant.

CASE NO. 1:20-cv-04806

Judge: Honorable Thomas M. Durkin

Magistrate Judge: Jeffrey Cole

DEFENDANT GYROOR’S MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION OF

THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ORDER [DKT 456]

Defendant Gyroor, by and through counsel, moves this Court for a clarification of its

Preliminary Injunction Order [Dkt, 456], in view of the Court’s recent orders [Dkt. 558, 559]. 1. Clarification regarding “G-11 model” hoverboard

Defendant Gyroor owns the “Gyroor Brand.” The Gryoor brand encompasses a variety of

hoverboards, electric scooters, electric bikes, and other accessory products. Examples are provided

below.

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 560 Filed: 06/19/22 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:14030
2

Gyroor Brand Products

Gyroor e-scooter Gyroor e-bike Gyroor hoverboards

Shown above, most Gyroor-brand products are irrelevant to this action and do not infringe

Plaintiffs’ design patents. Unless specific allegations are made against a particular Gyroor-brand

product, the product should not be presumably infringing. “An injunction ‘must not be broader than the legal justification for its entry.’” Common Cause

Ind. v. Lawson, 978 F.3d 1036, 1041 (7th Cir. 2020) (quoting Henderson v. Box, 947 F.3d 482, 487 (7th

Cir. 2020)). This Court also recognizes that the scope of the preliminary injunction is limited to

Plaintiffs’ motion paper. [Dkt. 558, p. 2] (“review shows that Yanjin-US was included in the chart in the

proposed order even though it was not mentioned in the motion papers. Thus, Yanjin-US should not

have been referenced in the preliminary injunction order entered on October 13, 2021, R. 456.”). Here, Plaintiffs made no allegations against Gyroor-brand products — “G 11 model” hoverboard. The “G 11 model” hoverboard should not be presumably infringing. The injunction should

be limited to the products in Plaintiffs’ motion paper [Dkt. 384, 385]. First, Plaintiffs only alleged infringement against four types of Gyroor-brand products in their

motion paper – “Gyroor A,” “Gyroor B,” “Gyroor C,” and “Gyroor D.” [Dkt. 384, §I.A.2., pp. 26-27]. The injunction should be limited to the four accused products.

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 560 Filed: 06/19/22 Page 2 of 5 PageID #:14031
3

Second, the “G 11 model” has a distinct design from the other four accused products (“Gyroor

A (T581 model),” “Gyroor B (G 2 Model),” “Gyroor C (T580 model),” and “Gyroor D (G 5 model)”). G 11 model is especially distinguishable because of its LED lit standing pedals and wheel covers. Comparisons are provided below.

Gyroor A (T581 model) Gyroor B (G 2 Model) Gyroor C (T580 model)

Gyroor D (G 5 model) Gyroor G 11 model

Third, ASIN for “G 11 model” hoverboard (B08RYMXRWM) was included in the chart “Exhibit B” of the proposed order [Dkt. 456, p. 15], even though the “G-11 model” hoverboard was not

mentioned in plaintiffs’ motion papers. Therefore, Defendant respectfully requests for a clarification as to whether the “G-11 model” hoverboard (B08RYMXRWM) was referenced in the preliminary injunction order due to an error. 2. Clarification regarding third-parties in “Exhibit A” of the Preliminary Injunction Order

Many third-party merchants were referenced in the “Exhibit A” of the Preliminary Injunction

Order. [Dkt. 486, p. 14]. After reviewing supporting exhibit to the “Store and Website” [Dkt. 383, pp.

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 560 Filed: 06/19/22 Page 3 of 5 PageID #:14032
4

2- 3], the Court recognizes that “Yanjin-US should not have been referenced in the preliminary

injunction order entered on October 13, 2021, R. 456” because “it was not mentioned in the motion

paper.” [Dkt. 558, p.2]. This Court further recognizes that “Plaintiffs included Yanjin-US in the proposed order by

mistake.” [Dkt. 559, p. 2]. “[B]ecause the Court was unaware of Yanjin-US’s existence prior to

Plaintiffs listing it in the proposed order...it is impossible for the Court to enjoin an entity without

knowledge that the entity exists.” Id. at p.3. Here, even taking into account the supporting exhibit to the “Store and Website,” [Dkt. 383], there are 14 third-party merchants on the Exhibit A (No. 1-11, 13-14, 17) that were not mentioned in

Plaintiffs’ motion paper. Because motion paper [Dkt. 384] was fully briefed, the Court must have reviewed all relevant

pleadings, and evidence including the supporting exhibit before granting the extraordinary injunctive

relief. Therefore, Defendant respectfully requests for a clarification as to whether the 14 third-party

merchants were referenced in the preliminary injunction order due to an error. Date: 06/19/2022 /s/ Tianyu Ju

Tianyu Ju

GLACIER LAW PLLC

200 Park Avenue, Ste 1703

New York, NY 10166

Attorney for Respondent

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 560 Filed: 06/19/22 Page 4 of 5 PageID #:14033
5

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this June 19, 2022, 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: 06/19/2021 /s/ Tianyu Ju

Tianyu Ju

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 560 Filed: 06/19/22 Page 5 of 5 PageID #:14034