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”, 

 Defendant.

CASE NO. 1:20-cv-04806 

Judge: Honorable Thomas M. Durkin

DEFENDANT GYROOR’S 

MOTION TO DISMISSPURSUANT TO RULE 12(b)(6) 

Defendant Gyroor, through counsel, file this Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 12(b)(6). The Parties agreed on the briefing schedule as follows: Plaintiffs’ response is due on 

September 3, 2021, and Defendant’s Reply is due on September 17, 2021. 

Introduction 

Plaintiffs alleged design patent infringement against Defendant because Gyroor is related to or 

affiliated with Gyroor-US, despite the fact that the two sellers were selling two different products with 

substantially dissimilar designs. 

Plaintiffs’ unsubstantiated infringement allegation against Defendant must be dismissed because 

I) Plaintiffs failed to meet the pleading standards under Rule 12(b)(6); and II) the noninfringement is 

obvious in this case. 

Procedural Background 

On November 20, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary injunction. [Dkt. No. 105]. 

On November 24, 2020, a preliminary injunction hearing was held. [Dkt. No. 112]. 

On November 24, 2020, a preliminary injunction order was entered. [Dkt. No. 113]. 

On December 24, 2020, a modified preliminary injunction order was entered. [Dkt. No. 147]. 

Service of process was not effectuated on Defendant until June 25, 2021. [Dkt. No. 310]. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 365 Filed: 08/13/21 Page 1 of 12 PageID #:8252
2 

Timeline 

Date: Event: 

07/10/2020 Initial Filing 

11/20/2020 Motion for Preliminary Injunction Filed [Dkt. No. 105] 

11/24/2020 Hearing for Preliminary Injunction held on November 24, 2020 

11/24/2020 Preliminary Injunction Order entered [Dkt. No. 113] 

12/23/2020 Modified Preliminary Injunction Order entered [Dkt. No. 147] 

06/25/2021 Email Service of Process [Dkt. No. 310]

Factual Background 

Plaintiffs made no specific allegations against Defendant aside from alleging “Gyroor store is 

related to or affiliated with Gyroor US.” [Dkt. No. 227-1, ¶15]. 

Evidence provided by Plaintiffs identifies the alleged infringing products “Gyroor Warrior 8.5 inch 

All Terrain Hoverboards Bluetooth Speaker & LED Lights, UL2272 Certified Self Balancing Scooter” 

[Dkt. No. 227-1, p. 47 of 92]. The product has a unique ASIN number B07S4KXRQR (“Accused Product”) 

[Dkt. No. 227-3, p. 4 of 4]. 

Arguments 

I. Plaintiffs’ Unsubstantiated Allegation Against Defendant Must Be Dismissed Because 

Plaintiffs failed to meet the pleading standards 

A Rule 12(b)(6) motion challenges the sufficiency of a complaint. Bonnstetter v. City of Chicago, 

811 F.3d 969, 973 (7th Cir. 2016). A complaint must contain enough information via “a short and plain 

statement of the claim” to give the Defendant fair notice of the claim and its basis. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2); 

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). 

A motion to dismiss should be granted if a complaint does not contain “sufficient factual matter, 

accepted as true, ‘to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Artrip v. Ball Corp., 735 Fed. 

Appx. 708, 709 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citing Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)). 

To meet the plausibility standard, a plaintiff must plead “factual content that allows the court to 

draw the reasonable inference that the Defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. Merely pleading 

facts that are consistent with liability or stating legal conclusions is not sufficient. Id. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 365 Filed: 08/13/21 Page 2 of 12 PageID #:8253
3 

“[W]here the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of 

misconduct, the complaint has alleged—but it has not ‘show[n]’—‘that the pleader is entitled to relief.’” 

Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. While the Court accepts all “well-pled” facts alleged in the complaint as true, it is 

not bound to accept the Plaintiff’s legal conclusions. Id. “[A] plaintiff’s obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ 

of his ‘entitle[ment] to relief’ requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the 

elements of a cause of action will not do.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citing Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 

265, 286 (1986)). A complaint will not suffice “if it tenders ‘naked assertion[s]’ devoid of ‘further factual 

enhancement.’” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 677 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557). Without “factual enhancements” 

sufficient to state a cause of action, the formulaic recitation of generic acts of infringement are insufficient 

to avoid dismissal. See Strategic Operations, Inc. v. Joseph, No. 3-17-cv-01539, 2018 WL 3833411, at *3 

(S.D. Cal., Aug. 13, 2018) (disregarding conclusory allegations that Defendant “continue to make, use, sell 

and offer for sale” the accused product, where more specific allegations failed to support infringement claim.) 

A complaint should be dismissed, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), when it lacks “a cognizable legal theory.” 

Bielskis v. Louisville Ladders Inc., No. 07 C 1411, 2007 WL 2088583, at *1 (N.D. Ill. July 18, 2007); 

see also Roper v. Jo-Ann Stores, Inc., 211 Fed. Appx. 950, 951 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (affirming dismissal where 

patent requirements could not apply to accused product). 

Here, aside from the conclusory claims that “Gyroor store is related to or affiliated with Gyroor 

US,” [Dkt. No. 227-1, ¶15], Plaintiffs failed to provide any specific facts to support its design patent 

infringement claim against Defendant Gyroor. 

Furthermore, the Accused Product sold by Defendant is a different product. The Accused Product 

has a substantial different design and a unique ASIN number. Therefore, Plaintiffs’ infringement allegations 

against Gyroor-US does not apply to Gyroor simply because they are “related or affiliated.” Lastly, 

as shown below, the Accused Product sold by Defendant is based on a valid U.S. Design Patent – the 

D808,856 Patent ( “D’856 Patent,” attached hereto as Exhibit 1), which does not infringe Plaintiffs’ Patents. 

Consequently, Plaintiffs failed to meet the pleading standards under Rule 12(b)(6). 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 365 Filed: 08/13/21 Page 3 of 12 PageID #:8254
4 

II. The Noninfringement Is Obvious Because the Accused Product Is Based on a Valid U.S. 

Design Patent – the D’856 Patent. 

Plaintiffs allege that four of Plaintiffs’ U.S. Design Patents – D737,723 (“D’723 patent”), 

D738,256 (“D’256 patent”), D785,112 (“D’112 patent”), D784,195 (“D’195 patent”) (“Patents-in-Suit”) 

[Am. Compl., Dkt. No. 101, ¶7; Dkt. No. 101-13] have been infringed by Defendant’s product ASIN No. 

B08R23QQT8 (“Accused Product”) [Dkt. No. 227-3, p. 4 of 4]. 

Defendant accepts that Plaintiffs are the owner of the Patents-in-suit. However, the Accused Product 

does not infringe the Patents-in-Suit. 

The noninfringement in this case is obvious because the Accused Product is based on a valid U.S. 

Design Patent – the D’856 patent, which does not infringe the Patents-in-Suit. 

A. D’856 Patent is presumed valid, especially against the Patents-in-Suit in this case 

A patent gives its owner the right to exclude others from making, using, offering to sell, selling, or 

importing the patented invention. 

“A patent shall be presumed valid.” 35 U.S.C. § 282. This presumption applies to design patents. 

Spigen Korea Co. v. Ultraproof, Inc., 955 F.3d 1379, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (“Design patents are presumed 

valid.”). A valid patent cannot infringe another patent. 

It is especially true in this case because the D’856 patent was examined against the Patents-in-Suit. 

As shown in the next page, all four Patents-in-Suit were cited as references by the patent examiner in the 

D’856 patent. Therefore, the D’856 was issued after the patent examiner found that the D’856 patent 

embodies a “new, original and ornamental design.” See 35 U.S. Code § 171(a). 

// 

// 

// 

// 

// 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 365 Filed: 08/13/21 Page 4 of 12 PageID #:8255
MOONTLIKT USOOD808856S U UITA DI UN MOMENTO 

( 12 ) United States Design Patent ( 10 ) Patent No . : 

Zhang et al . Patent ( 45 ) as Patero Date of Nosient Patent : US D808 , 8568 US D808 , 856 S 

* * Jan . 30 , 2018 

Île EÊ( 54 ) HOVERBOARD 

( 71 ) Applicant : Shenzhen Chitado Technology Co . , LTD . , Shenzhen , Guangdong ( CN ) 

( 72 ) Inventors : Dianxuan Zhang , Guangdong ( CN ) ; Dengjin Zhou , Guangdong ( CN ) 

D780 , 626 S * 3 / 2017 Li . . . . . . . D12 / 1 D784 , 195 S * 4 / 2017 Ying . . . . . . . D12 / 1 

D784 , 198 S * 4 / 2017 Zhu . . . . . . . . D12 / 1 

D785 , 112 S * 4 / 2017 Ying . . . D21 / 760 

D785 , 113 S * 4 / 2017 Ying D21 / 760 

D785 , 736 S * 5 / 2017 Ying D21 / 760 

D786 , 130 S * 5 / 2017 Huang . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D12 / 1 

D786 , 994 S * 5 / 2017 Chen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121 / 760 

D786 , 995 S * 5 / 2017 Ying . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D21 / 760 

9 , 688 , 340 B1 * 6 / 2017 Kroymann . . . . . . . . . . . . . B62K 13 / 04 

2013 / 0238231 A1 * 9 / 2013 Chen B62K 11 / 007 

701 / 124 

2016 / 0129963 A1 * 5 / 2016 Ying . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B62D 51 / 001 

180 / 6 . 5 

2016 / 0325803 A1 * 11 / 2016 Waxman . . . B62M 7 / 12 

2017 / 0144718 A1 * 5 / 2017 Tinaphong . . . . . . . . . . . B62K 11 / 007 

2017 / 0240240 A1 * 8 / 2017 Kroymann . . . . . . . . . . . . . B62K 13 / 04 

( 73 ) Assignee : Shenzhen Chitado technology Co . , LTD . ( CN ) 

( * * ) Term : 15 Years 

( 21 ) Appl . No . : 29 / 590 , 447 

* cited by examiner 

. . . . . . . . . . . . 

( 57 ) 

( 22 ) Filed : Jan . 10 , 2017 

( 51 ) LOC ( 11 ) CI . . . . . 12 - 14 

( 52 ) U . S . CI . USPC . . . . . . . . . . . . . D12 / 1 

( 58 ) Field of Classification Search 

USPC . . . . . . D12 / 1 , 5 ; D21 / 419 , 421 , 423 , 426 , 662 , D21 / 760 , 765 , 766 , 769 , 771 , 776 , 803 

CPC . . . . B62K 3 / 007 ; B62K 17 / 00 ; B62K 2202 / 00 : 

B62K 11 / 007 ; B62D 51 / 001 ; B62D 

51 / 02 ; B62D 61 / 00 ; B62D 37 / 00 ; A63C 

17 / 0033 ; A63C 17 / 01 ; A63C 17 / 016 ; 

A63C 2203 / 40 ; A63C 17 / 12 ; A63C 

17 / 08 ; B60N 2002 ; B60G 17 / 019 

See application file for complete search history . 

Primary Examiner — T . Chase Nelson 

Assistant Examiner — Ania Aman 

CLAIM 

The ornamental design for a hoverboard , as shown and 

described . 

DESCRIPTION 

FIG . 1 is a front view of the hoverboard showing our new design ; 

FIG . 2 is a back view thereof ; 

FIG . 3 is a top view thereof ; 

FIG . 4 is a bottom view thereof ; 

FIG . 5 is a left side view thereof ; 

FIG . 6 is a right side view thereof ; 

FIG . 7 is a perspective view thereof ; and , FIG . 8 is another perspective view thereof . 

( 56 ) References Cited 

U . S . PATENT DOCUMENTS 

D737 , 723 S * 

D738 , 256 S * 

D778 , 782 S * 

9 / 2015 Ying . . . . . . . . . . . 9 / 2015 Ying . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 / 2017 Chen . . . . . . . 

D12 / 1 D12 / 1 

D12 / 1 1 Claim , 8 Drawing Sheets 

5

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 365 Filed: 08/13/21 Page 5 of 12 PageID #:8256
6 

B. The Accused Product is identical to the D’856 patent 

Top View Comparison 

Plaintiffs’ Patents-in-Suit 

 D’723 Patent D’256 Patent

 D’195 Patent D’112 Patent

 

The Licensed 

D’856 Patent 

The Accused Product 

The most prominent ornamental features from the Top View are the shape and design of the two 

standing pads. Both D’723 and D’256 Patents feature straight divergent lines. Neither D’195 nor D’112 

Patents features any design on standing pads (broken lines). 

The Accused Product, like the D’856 Patent, has diamond shape standing pads and unique 

patterns on the standing pads, which are plainly dissimilar from the designs of the Patents-in-Suit. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 365 Filed: 08/13/21 Page 6 of 12 PageID #:8257
7 

Bottom View Comparison 

Plaintiffs’ Patents-in-Suit 

 D’723 Patent D’256 Patent

 D’195 Patent D’112 Patent

The Licensed 

D’856 Patent 

The Accused Product 

The most prominent ornamental features from the Bottom View are the size, numbers, shape, 

and arrangement of the vent holes. Only D’112 features a pair of 12 small closely arranged vent holes. 

The size, numbers, shape, and arrangement of the vent holes featured in the Accused Product 

match the ornamental design of D’856 Patent, which is plainly dissimilar from the D’112 Patent. 

Furthermore, the vertical ridges in the center of the Accused Product are ornamental features 

that are unique to the Accused Product and D’856 Patent. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 365 Filed: 08/13/21 Page 7 of 12 PageID #:8258
8 

Side View Comparison 

Plaintiffs’ Patents-in-Suit 

 D’723 Patent D’256 Patent

 D’195 Patent D’112 Patent

The Licensed D’856 Patent The Accused Product 

None of the Patents-in-Suit features any design of the wheels (broken lines). 

The wheels of the Accused product have a unique pentamerous design. Five irregular hexagons 

are evenly distributed on the wheel. This unique design match exactly the ornamental design of D’856 

Patent, which is plainly dissimilar from the designs of the Patents-in-Suit. 

The fender in the Accused Product, like in the D’856 patent, does not cover the wheels and is 

completely above the wheel, which is plainly dissimilar from the designs of the Patents-in-Suit. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 365 Filed: 08/13/21 Page 8 of 12 PageID #:8259
9 

Front/Back View Comparison 

Plaintiffs’ Patents-in-Suit 

 D’723 Patent D’256 Patent

 D’195 Patent D’112 Patent

The Licensed 

D’856 Patent 

The Accused Product 

The most prominent ornamental features from the Front/Back View are the size, curve and shape of 

the fenders that cover the wheels. The Accused Product has its own unique design of the fenders. 

The fender in the Accused Product, like in the D’856 patent, does not cover the side of wheels, which 

is plainly dissimilar from the designs of the Patents-in-Suit. Furthermore, the fenders also feature sharp edges 

which are distinctive from the smooth round edge featured in the Patents-in-Suit. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 365 Filed: 08/13/21 Page 9 of 12 PageID #:8260
10 

Perspective View Comparison 

Plaintiffs’ Patents-in-Suit 

 D’723 Patent D’256 Patent

 D’195 Patent D’112 Patent

 The Licensed D’856 Patent The Accused Product

The perspective view comparison shows the overall visual distinctions between the Patents-in-Suit 

and the Accused Product. 

Each element of the ornamental feature, viewed together, only enhances the dissimilarity between 

the Accused Product and the Patent-in-Suite. The combination of the substantially dissimilar standing 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 365 Filed: 08/13/21 Page 10 of 12 PageID #:8261
11 

pads, the wheels, and the fenders creates an overall visual impression that no ordinary observer would 

consider that the Accused Product and the Patents-in-Suit are of the same design. 

Therefore, the Accused Product is identical to the D’856 patent, and designs of the Accused Product 

and the Patents-in-Suit are not substantially similar. 

Conclusion 

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant respectfully requests that the Court dismiss complains 

against Defendant Gyroor. 

Date: 08/13/2021 /s/ Tianyu Ju 

Tianyu Ju, Esq. 

GLACIER LAW PLLC 

200 E. Randolph Dr., Ste. 5100 

Chicago, IL 60601 

Attorney for Defendant 

 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 365 Filed: 08/13/21 Page 11 of 12 PageID #:8262
12 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this August 13, 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: 08/13/2021 /s/ Tianyu Ju 

Tianyu Ju, Esq. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 365 Filed: 08/13/21 Page 12 of 12 PageID #:8263