United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

ABC CORPORATION I, ABC CORPORATION II,

Plaintiffs-Appellees

EBAY, INC.,

Plaintiff

v.

THE PARTNERSHIP AND UNINCORPORATED 

ASSOCIATIONS IDENTIFIED ON SCHEDULE "A", 

TOMOLOO OFFICIAL, TOMOLOO INE, TOMOLOO 

FRANCHISE, TOMOLOO-US, TOMOLOO 

FLAGSHIP, TOMOLOO TC, TOMOLOO DX, 

TOMOLOO INT, CARTSTACK, DIDEN WU, 

HUSNAL-COLLECTIONS, MHESTORE2009, 

WHOLESALESHOP666, CARRIE_YUX-5, 

2013TANKSTRONG001, MIJIASTORE, PAUTA60, 

SKATEBOARDSTORE2012, SMG-STORE, 

STRONGJENNIE, CHO POWER SPORTS, SYLUS, 

XGN, SHAMOLUOTUO, 

XUEWEIWEIFUZHUANGDIAN, EVERCROSS, XIE 

SHI, RUNCHENYUN, TOMOLOO, 

SHOPCHEAPUNIVERSAL, TOMOLOO-NX, 

AOXTECH, BETTER TOMOLOO, LISON ET, HGSM 

STOREFRONT, GYROOR US,

Defendants

URBANMAX, GAODESHANGUS, GYROOR, 

FENGCHI-US, JIANGYOU-US, GYROSHOES, 

HGSM,

Defendants-Appellants

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 588 Filed: 10/28/22 Page 1 of 27 PageID #:14162 Case: 22-1071 Document: 9 Page: 1 Filed: 10/28/2022
ABC CORPORATION I v.

PARTNERSHIP AND UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATIONS

2

______________________ 

2022-1071

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

Northern District of Illinois in No. 1:20-cv-04806, Judge 

Thomas M. Durkin.

______________________ 

Decided: October 28, 2022

______________________ 

MARK BERKOWITZ, Tarter Krinsky & Drogin LLP, New 

York, NY, argued for plaintiffs-appellees. Also represented 

by RICHARD LOMUSCIO. Also represented by Adam G. 

Kelly, Douglas N. Masters, Neil G. Nandi, Arthur Tan-Chi 

Yuan, Loeb & Loeb LLP, Chicago, IL (withdrawn).

 HE CHENG, Glacier Law LLP, New York, NY, argued 

for defendants-appellants. Also represented by TIANYU JU,

TAO LIU. 

 ______________________ 

Before DYK, TARANTO, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.

DYK, Circuit Judge. 

This is an appeal from the district court’s entry of an 

October 2021 preliminary injunction against appellants

Urbanmax, GaodeshangUS, Gyroor, Fengchi-US, 

Jiangyou-US, Gyroshoes, and HGSM (collectively “appellants”). Because the district court failed to meet the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d) and 

our precedent in finding that the plaintiffs were likely to 

succeed on the merits, we reverse and remand.

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 588 Filed: 10/28/22 Page 2 of 27 PageID #:14163 Case: 22-1071 Document: 9 Page: 2 Filed: 10/28/2022
ABC CORPORATION I v.

PARTNERSHIP AND UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATIONS

3

BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs Hangzhou Chic Intelligent Technology Co., 

Ltd. and Unicorn Global, Inc. (collectively “plaintiffs”)1 own 

four design patents on hoverboards: U.S. Patent Nos. 

D737,723 (“D’723 patent”), D738,256 (“D’256 patent”), 

D784,195 (“D’195 patent”), and D785,112 (“D’112 patent”). 

The four patented designs are set forth in Appendix A2 of 

this opinion.

Appellants sell Gyroor-branded hoverboards. Plaintiffs brought suit against appellants claiming that products 

sold by appellants infringed plaintiffs’ patents. The parties 

focused on four products—“Gyroor A,” “Gyroor B,” “Gyroor C,” and “Gyroor D.” On appeal, the parties have referred to these products as “Accused Product A,” “Accused 

Product B,” “Accused Product C,” and “Accused Product D.” As an example, Appendix A of this opinion compares Product D to the patented designs. Because the

asserted patents cover different angles of view, different 

angles of the accused products are relevant for determining 

infringement.

Plaintiffs sought a temporary restraining order, a preliminary injunction, a final injunction, and damages. The 

1 The case caption names “ABC Corporation I” and 

“ABC Corporation II.” Hangzhou Chic Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd. and Unicorn Global, Inc. are the real parties 

in interest. Hangzhou Chic Intelligent Technology is listed 

as the owner on the four patents. Unicorn Global is the 

exclusive U.S. distributor of plaintiffs’ products. The caption also lists eBay as a plaintiff. eBay is a third-party 

plaintiff not relevant to this appeal.

2 The figures in Appendix A were prepared by appellants, but plaintiffs do not dispute their accuracy. Arrows 

and boxes on the images are appellants’ annotations and 

should be disregarded for the purposes of this opinion.

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 588 Filed: 10/28/22 Page 3 of 27 PageID #:14164 Case: 22-1071 Document: 9 Page: 3 Filed: 10/28/2022
ABC CORPORATION I v.

PARTNERSHIP AND UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATIONS

4

district court entered a temporary restraining order on 

September 22, 2020, followed by a preliminary injunction 

on November 24, 2020, which eventually enjoined appellants here from “offering for sale, selling, and importing 

any products not authorized by Plaintiffs and that include 

any reproduction, copy or colorable imitation of the design 

claimed in the Patents-in-Suit.” In a separate opinion issued today, we conclude that the entry of the 2020 preliminary injunction was procedurally improper for lack of Rule 

65(a) notice and vacate that injunction “as of its issuance.” 

ABC Corp. I v. P’ship & Unincorporated Ass’ns, -- F.4th --

(Fed. Cir. 2022).

In light of motions to set aside the 2020 preliminary 

injunction raising issues regarding the procedural propriety of the injunction, the district court permitted plaintiffs 

to file a renewed motion for a preliminary injunction. On 

August 24, 2021, plaintiffs filed a motion for entry of a second preliminary injunction, the injunction that is at issue 

in this appeal. Appellants did not argue that the request 

for the 2021 preliminary injunction presented any of the 

procedural problems present in the 2020 injunction.

The focus of the parties’ dispute before the district 

court as to the 2021 injunction was whether plaintiffs had 

established a likelihood of success on the merits that the 

accused products infringed one or more claims of the asserted patents. In order to establish design patent infringement, a plaintiff must show that “an ordinary 

observer, familiar with the prior art designs, would be deceived into believing that the accused product is the same 

as the patented design.” Crocs, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 

598 F.3d 1294, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (citing Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, Inc., 543 F.3d 665, 681 (Fed. Cir. 2008)

(en banc)). “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.” Egyptian Goddess, 543 F.3d at 676.

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 588 Filed: 10/28/22 Page 4 of 27 PageID #:14165 Case: 22-1071 Document: 9 Page: 4 Filed: 10/28/2022
ABC CORPORATION I v.

PARTNERSHIP AND UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATIONS

5

Central to the parties’ dispute was prior art U.S. Patent No. D739,906 (“D’906 patent”). That patent displayed 

and claimed an hourglass shape for a hoverboard, a prominent feature of each of the plaintiffs’ patented designs and 

most of the accused products. A figure showing the D’906 

patent design appears later in this opinion.

In support of the motion for a preliminary injunction, 

plaintiffs submitted the 2021 expert report of Paul Hatch. 

Hatch’s report described the patents-in-suit, identified the 

four accused products, and then opined that the accused 

products infringed the patents-in-suit. For each patent, 

Hatch displayed side-by-side images of the asserted patent 

and accused products and described how the ordinary observer test applied to the “Accused Products” as a group, 

without providing a product-by-product analysis. For instance, Hatch opined, “Unlike the cited prior art [including 

the D’906 patent], the claimed design of the ‘195 Patent 

and the Accused Products share an integrated ‘hourglass’ 

body with many horizontal styling lines across the body 

and a relatively flat surface across the top, arched covers 

over the wheel area, larger radii on the front and back of 

the underside. Unlike any of the prior art the foot plates 

narrow as they extend toward the center.” J.A. 8410 (emphasis added). Hatch did not explain why having an “hourglass body” was “unlike” the prior art.3

In a section titled, “The Cited Prior Art Show The Patents-In-Suit Have A Broad Scope,” Hatch included three 

tables with prior art figures. J.A. 8401–04. The first table 

showed the “Cited Prior Art From the Face of the ’723 and 

’256 Patents.” J.A. 8401–02. This table contained six figures from prior art patents. It did not include the prior art 

D’906 patent. The second table showed prior art cited by 

3 Other features, such as the “relatively flat surface 

across the top,” seem to have been present in the prior art 

as well. J.A. 8410. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 588 Filed: 10/28/22 Page 5 of 27 PageID #:14166 Case: 22-1071 Document: 9 Page: 5 Filed: 10/28/2022
ABC CORPORATION I v.

PARTNERSHIP AND UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATIONS

6

the D’195 patent and contained eight figures from prior art 

patents, including the D’906 patent. The third table 

showed twelve figures from prior art patents, including the 

D’906 patent, cited by the D’112 patent.

After each table, Hatch provided a cursory analysis 

concluding that “the overall impression of the claimed design . . . is entirely unique” and that “[n]one of the prior art 

create the impression of” the claimed design, e.g., 

J.A. 8404, for instance, “an integrated ‘hourglass’ body

with many angled lines across the body and a relatively flat 

surface across the top, arched covers over the wheel area, 

larger radii on the front and back of the underside.” 

J.A. 8404 (emphasis added). Again, Hatch did not explain 

how the D’906 patent failed to show an “hourglass body.”

In short, Hatch relied on the hourglass shape of the accused products to show substantial similarity despite our 

prior case authority limiting the relevance of features 

shown in the prior art in the substantial similarity analysis. See Egyptian Goddess, 543 F.3d at 676; J.A. 8404 

(“[T]he claimed design of the [asserted patent] and the Accused Product share the same overall impression and have 

an integrated ‘hourglass’ body . . . .”). 

In opposing plaintiffs’ 2021 motion for a preliminary 

injunction, appellants urged that plaintiffs failed to account for the D’906 patent in the infringement analysis and 

that the additional ornamental features of Accused Products A through D were not substantially similar to the asserted patents.4 Appellants relied on the expert reports of 

4 Appellants filed five oppositions to the preliminary 

injunction. Appellants Fengchi-US, Gyroor, Jiangyou, and 

GaodeshangUS filed individual oppositions while Urbanmax, HGSM, and Gyroshoes filed a joint opposition. All 

oppositions relied upon expert reports from Jim Gandy and 

Lance Rake.

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 588 Filed: 10/28/22 Page 6 of 27 PageID #:14167 Case: 22-1071 Document: 9 Page: 6 Filed: 10/28/2022
ABC CORPORATION I v.

PARTNERSHIP AND UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATIONS

7

Jim Gandy and Lance Rake. Gandy’s report provided a 

brief response to the Hatch declaration and then did a patent-by-patent, product-by-product noninfringement analysis in light of the D’906 prior art patent. In each section, 

Gandy compared and contrasted particular features of the 

accused product, the asserted patent, and the prior art 

D’906 patent, such as the “hourglass figure” or the foot 

pads before concluding that an ordinary observer “would 

not be confused so as to purchase one thinking it to be the 

other.” E.g., J.A. 8784. 

Rake described the D’906 patent and responded to 

Hatch’s declaration on a patent-by-patent, product-byproduct basis in light of the D’906 patent. In comparing

each patent against each accused product, Rake performed

a three-way comparison between the D’906 patent, the asserted patent, and the accused product before concluding 

that “[t]he substantially dissimilar [features such as] foot 

pads, lighting design, . . . design of the undercarriage and 

. . . fender design creates a substantially different overall 

visual impression to the ordinary observer.” E.g., 

J.A. 8888. 

Plaintiffs then filed a further expert report by Hatch 

which again urged substantial similarity once more relying

on the hourglass shape from the prior art. For example, 

with respect to the D’723 Patent, Hatch opined: 

Unlike the ’906 Patent, the claimed design of the 

’723 Patent and the Accused Products share the 

same overall impression and have an integrated 

‘hourglass’ body with a relatively flat surface 

across the top of the main body, arched covers over 

the wheel area, larger radii on the front and back 

of the underside, and elongated light panels on the 

front surface.

J.A. 10,567. Hatch provided a similar analysis for the 

other asserted patents, again without explanation as to 

how the “hourglass body” was “unlike” the prior art. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 588 Filed: 10/28/22 Page 7 of 27 PageID #:14168 Case: 22-1071 Document: 9 Page: 7 Filed: 10/28/2022
ABC CORPORATION I v.

PARTNERSHIP AND UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATIONS

8

On October 6, 2021, the district court entered a minute 

entry granting plaintiffs’ renewed motion for a preliminary 

injunction. Understanding the district court’s minute entry requires reference to the district court’s decisions concerning the 2020 preliminary injunction insofar as the 

court addressed the likelihood of success on the merits. 

On November 24, 2020, the district court granted the 

2020 preliminary injunction at a hearing, stating: 

I do believe the plaintiff will likely succeed on the 

merits of their design patent . . . infringement. The 

claim designs in the infringing products are not sufficiently dissimilar, or plainly dissimilar; the analysis of the patents-in-suit in [sic] infringing 

products demonstrates that the defendants are infringing on plaintiffs’ patents. It’s the D723 patent, 

the D256 patent, D195 patent, and D112 patent.

Tr. Proc. at 12:15–22, ABC Corp. I v. P’ship & Unincorporated Ass’ns, No. 1:20-cv-4806 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 24, 2020) (emphasis added), ECF No. 393. 

The 2020 preliminary injunction, entered the same 

day, found that “Plaintiffs have proved a prima facie case 

of design patent infringement because . . . an ordinary observe[r] would be deceived into thinking the products sold 

on Defendant Internet Stores (‘Infringing Products’) are 

the same as the products manufactured and sold by Plaintiffs that utilize the Patents-in-Suit . . . .” J.A. 8–9. 

In support of its August 2021 motion to dissolve the 

2020 preliminary injunction, Gyroor-US argued that plaintiffs lacked a likelihood of success on the merits. At the 

hearing on Gyroor-US’s motion to dissolve, the court 

stated:

As to likelihood of success, plaintiff filed an expert 

report with their motion for a preliminary injunction stating that Gyroor’s product infringes plaintiffs’ patent. Gyroor has now filed an expert report 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 588 Filed: 10/28/22 Page 8 of 27 PageID #:14169 Case: 22-1071 Document: 9 Page: 8 Filed: 10/28/2022
ABC CORPORATION I v.

PARTNERSHIP AND UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATIONS

9

stating that Gyroor's product does not infringe and 

Gyroor’s patent[5] is prior art.

Resolving this expert dispute will likely require a 

trial. I find that the need for a trial is sufficient in 

this case for plaintiff to have met their burden to 

demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits.

J.A. 8482 (emphasis added). The district court did not conduct a product-by-product analysis for the four accused 

products.

In the minute entry granting the 2021 preliminary injunction, the district court stated: 

The arguments of the Urbanmax and Fengchi defendants mirror those made by defendant GyroorUS on a similar motion to dissolve the preliminary 

injunction that the Court denied on August 24, 

2021. They cite other patents as prior art [including the D’906 patent] that would serve to enable an 

“ordinary observer” to distinguish Defendants’ 

products from Plaintiffs’ products. Like GyroorUS, the Urbanmax and Fengchi defendants submitted expert reports supporting their arguments. . . . As with the motion by Gyroor-US, the 

Court finds that “resolving this expert dispute will 

likely require a trial.” Defendants’ evidence is not 

so compelling that it serves to overcome the Court's 

finding that Plaintiffs have demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits. This is especially 

true when weighed against Plaintiffs’ showing of 

irreparable harm, which Defendants do not 

5 It is unclear whether “Gyroor’s patent” refers to the 

prior art D’906 patent or the non-prior art D808,857 patent, which appears to be a third-party patent that GyroorUS is “authorized to use.” J.A. 7060. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 588 Filed: 10/28/22 Page 9 of 27 PageID #:14170 Case: 22-1071 Document: 9 Page: 9 Filed: 10/28/2022
ABC CORPORATION I v.

PARTNERSHIP AND UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATIONS

10

challenge. . . . Therefore, Plaintiffs’ renewed motion for a preliminary injunction is granted.

J.A. 10707 (emphasis added) (citations omitted). Again, 

the district court did not conduct a product-by-product 

analysis.

Appellants filed a notice of appeal on October 8, 2021.6 

The district court thereafter entered the preliminary injunction order on October 13, 2021. The order reproduces

the figures from the asserted patents and states:

Argument and evidence submitted in support of this 

Motion and in support of Plaintiffs’ previously 

granted Motion for Entry of a Preliminary Injunction establish that Plaintiffs have demonstrated a 

likelihood of success on the merits . . . . Specifically, 

Plaintiffs have proved a prima facie case of design 

patent infringement because . . . an ordinary observer would be deceived into thinking the products sold by the Gyroor Defendants are the same as 

the products manufactured and sold by Plaintiffs 

that utilize the Patents-in-Suit (“Plaintiffs’ Products”).

J.A. 1623 (emphasis added) (citations omitted).

On appeal, the issue is whether the 2021 preliminary 

injunction must be set aside because the district court 

erred in determining the likelihood of success on the merits. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1295(a)(1). 

6 It appears that this is a premature appeal. “Once 

judgment is entered, [Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 

4(a)(2)] treats the premature notice of appeal ‘as filed after 

such entry.’” FirsTier Mortg. Co. v. Invs. Mortg. Ins., 498 

U.S. 269, 275 (1991) (quoting Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(2)). 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 588 Filed: 10/28/22 Page 10 of 27 PageID #:14171 Case: 22-1071 Document: 9 Page: 10 Filed: 10/28/2022
ABC CORPORATION I v.

PARTNERSHIP AND UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATIONS

11

DISCUSSION

I 

 “A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is 

likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, 

and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Winter v. 

Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008) (citations 

omitted). In reviewing the grant or denial of a preliminary 

injunction, “the estimated likelihood of success in establishing infringement is governed by Federal Circuit law,” 

Revision Mil., Inc. v. Balboa Mfg. Co., 700 F.3d 524, 526 

(Fed. Cir. 2012), while the other factors are governed by the 

law of the regional circuit, see Koninklijke Philips N.V. v. 

Thales DIS AIS USA LLC, 39 F.4th 1377, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 

2022).

Design patent infringement occurs when a party, 

“without license of the owner, (1) applies the patented design, or any colorable imitation thereof, to any article of 

manufacture for the purpose of sale, or (2) sells or exposes 

for sale any article of manufacture to which such design or 

colorable imitation has been applied.” 35 U.S.C. § 289. “To 

show infringement under the proper test, [a plaintiff must 

demonstrate that] an ordinary observer, familiar with the 

prior art designs, would be deceived into believing that the 

accused product is the same as the patented design.” 

Crocs, 598 F.3d at 1303 (citing Egyptian Goddess, 543 F.3d 

at 678); see also Egyptian Goddess, 543 F.3d at 676 (“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.”) 

II

The district court determined that plaintiffs here had 

shown a likelihood of success on the issue of infringement. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 588 Filed: 10/28/22 Page 11 of 27 PageID #:14172 Case: 22-1071 Document: 9 Page: 11 Filed: 10/28/2022
ABC CORPORATION I v.

PARTNERSHIP AND UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATIONS

12

We conclude that the district court erred in four independent respects.

First, the district court applied, at least in part, the 

wrong legal standard. When the district court concluded 

that plaintiffs had established a likelihood of success on the 

merits in denying Gyroor’s motion to dissolve the 2020 preliminary injunction, a finding relied upon in granting the 

2021 preliminary injunction, the court reasoned: “Resolving this expert dispute will likely require a trial. I find that 

the need for a trial is sufficient in this case for plaintiff to 

have met their burden to demonstrate a likelihood of success 

on the merits.” J.A. 8482 (emphasis added).7 Elsewhere 

the district court stated: “[P]laintiff will likely succeed on 

the merits of their design patent . . . infringement. The 

claim designs in the infringing products are not sufficiently 

dissimilar, or plainly dissimilar . . . .” Tr. Proc. at 12:15–

18, ABC Corp. I, No. 1:20-cv-4806 (Nov. 24, 2020), ECF

No. 393. This reasoning is directly counter to our precedent. To show a likelihood of success on the merits, a patentee must show that it will likely prove infringement of 

the asserted claims. “If [the defendant] raises a substantial question concerning . . . infringement . . . , i.e., asserts 

an infringement . . . defense that the patentee cannot prove 

‘lacks substantial merit,’ the preliminary injunction should 

not issue.” Amazon.com, Inc. v. Barnesandnoble.com, Inc., 

239 F.3d 1343, 1350–51 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (quoting Genentech, Inc. v. Novo Nordisk, A/S, 108 F.3d 1361, 1364 

(Fed.Cir.1997)). An injunction cannot be granted because 

a trial is required or because the accused products are not 

“sufficiently dissimilar” or “plainly dissimilar” from the patented design. Thus, the court failed, at least in part, to 

apply “the appropriate legal standard,” necessitating 

7 The district court elsewhere noted the need for a 

trial: “[T]he Court finds that ‘resolving this expert dispute 

will likely require a trial.’” J.A. 10707 (quoting J.A. 8482).

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 588 Filed: 10/28/22 Page 12 of 27 PageID #:14173 Case: 22-1071 Document: 9 Page: 12 Filed: 10/28/2022
ABC CORPORATION I v.

PARTNERSHIP AND UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATIONS

13

setting aside the 2021 preliminary injunction order. Adkins v. Nestle Purina PetCare Co., 779 F.3d 481, 483 (7th 

Cir. 2015).

Second, the district court was required to conduct the 

ordinary observer analysis through the lens of the prior art, 

and the court’s conclusory discussion contains no indication that it conducted the required analysis. In the minute 

entry granting the 2021 preliminary injunction, the district 

court stated that appellants “cite other patents as prior art 

that would serve to enable an ‘ordinary observer’ to distinguish Defendants' products from Plaintiffs’ products.” 

J.A. 10707. The court’s reference to other patents as prior 

art appears to include the D’906 patent but fails to explain 

how the court’s finding of likelihood of success on the merits is consistent with the existence of the D’906 patent.

Where a patented design and an accused product are 

not “plainly dissimilar,” the court must conduct a threeway analysis comparing the accused product, the patented 

design, and the prior art. Egyptian Goddess, 543 F.3d 

at 677–78. “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.” Egyptian Goddess, 543 F.3d at 676; see also

Lanard Toys Ltd. v. Dolgencorp LLC, 958 F.3d 1337, 1344 

(Fed. Cir. 2020).8 In other words, where a dominant feature of the patented design and the accused products—here 

the hourglass shape—appears in the prior art, the focus of 

8 A similar problem exists in copyright law when a 

copyrighted work has both protectable and unprotectible 

elements. Copyright “[i]nfringement is shown by a substantial similarity of protectible expression, not just an 

overall similarity between the works.” 4 Melville B. Nimmer & David Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright § 13.03 

(2022).

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 588 Filed: 10/28/22 Page 13 of 27 PageID #:14174 Case: 22-1071 Document: 9 Page: 13 Filed: 10/28/2022
ABC CORPORATION I v.

PARTNERSHIP AND UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATIONS

14

the infringement substantial similarity analysis in most 

cases will be on other features of the design. The shared 

dominant feature from the prior art will be no more than a 

background feature of the design, necessary for a finding of 

substantial similarity but insufficient by itself to support a 

finding of substantial similarity. 

 Here, appellants established the existence of a relevant 

piece of prior art: the D’906 patent. The D’906 patent is 

titled “Two-wheeled vehicle” and has five figures, of which 

Figure 1 is exemplary. J.A. 66.

J.A. 67 (Fig. 1 of the D’906 Patent).

The D’906 patent is highly relevant to the question of infringement because it discloses an “hourglass” shape, a 

prominent feature common to the asserted patents and 

most of the accused products, see, e.g., Appendix A, and a 

feature relied on by the plaintiff to establish substantial 

similarity. 

There is, moreover, a substantial argument that the ordinary observer would be drawn to the hourglass figure, 

rather than other design elements. The hourglass shape is 

a prominent feature of the asserted patents, and most of 

the accused products and other similarities between the 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 588 Filed: 10/28/22 Page 14 of 27 PageID #:14175 Case: 22-1071 Document: 9 Page: 14 Filed: 10/28/2022
ABC CORPORATION I v.

PARTNERSHIP AND UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATIONS

15

asserted patents and accused products are arguably less 

significant. See Egyptian Goddess, 543 F.3d at 678. 

The district court appeared to rely on the infringement

discussion in the Hatch reports; the 2021 preliminary injunction order stated that “[a]rgument and evidence submitted in support of this Motion and in support of 

Plaintiffs’ previously granted Motion for Entry of a Preliminary Injunction establish that Plaintiffs have demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits.” J.A. 23

(citations omitted). The Hatch reports, far from recognizing that the hourglass figure of the asserted patents could 

not be relied on to establish substantial similarity, improperly relied on that feature to show substantial similarity. 

The Hatch reports did not support a finding of substantial 

similarity.

Third, the district court failed to apply the ordinary observer test on a product-by-product basis, which is particularly important here in light of significant differences 

among the accused products themselves. “Rule 65(d) requires . . . a preliminary injunction to ‘state the reasons 

why it issued,’ and Rule 52(a)(2) requires a statement of 

findings of fact and conclusions of law for decisions granting or refusing an ‘interlocutory injunction’ (a phrase that 

includes preliminary injunctions).” H-D Mich., LLC v. Hellenic Duty Free Shops S.A., 694 F.3d 827, 845 (7th Cir. 

2012) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d) and 52(a)(2)). A plaintiff has the burden of showing that each product infringes 

at least one claim. L & W, Inc. v. Shertech, Inc., 471 F.3d 

1311, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“When a patentee with the 

burden of proof seeks summary judgment of infringement, 

it must make a prima facie showing of infringement as to 

each accused device . . . .”). Accordingly, when a court 

“state[s] the reasons” why a preliminary injunction issued, 

it must generally conduct a product-by-product infringement analysis.

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 588 Filed: 10/28/22 Page 15 of 27 PageID #:14176 Case: 22-1071 Document: 9 Page: 15 Filed: 10/28/2022
ABC CORPORATION I v.

PARTNERSHIP AND UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATIONS

16

The district court failed to make product-by-product infringement findings. Neither in the proceedings concerning the preliminary injunctions nor in the preliminary 

injunction orders themselves did the district court mention 

Accused Products A through D, much less analyze whether 

each product infringes specific claims of the asserted patents.

The 2021 preliminary injunction itself, while not referencing Accused Products A through D, references product 

ID numbers in Exhibit B and product names in Exhibit C. 

It is unclear exactly what the relationship is between Accused Products A through D, the product ID numbers in 

Exhibit B, and the product names in Exhibit C. At any 

rate, the injunction does not make infringement findings 

as to the product ID numbers or product names in the exhibits. The order thus does not contain any specific infringement findings to support the entry of the injunction.

Again, the court’s reliance on the Hatch reports does 

not cure the defect. Those expert reports failed to analyze 

infringement on a product-by-product basis. The entirety 

of the Hatch report’s infringement analysis for the D’723 

patent, for example, excluding the table with figures, is:

Although the below charts only present selected 

views, my analysis was undertaken on each of the 

accused products individually, based upon the entirety of the reference materials.

Giving due consideration to the legal standards as 

outlined in Section II, the examination illustrated 

in the table above allows for no other reasonable 

conclusion than that the overall visual impression 

of the Claimed Design of the ’723 Patent and the 

Accused Products are not plainly dissimilar.

In the eyes of the ordinary observer, the claimed 

design of the ’723 is substantially the same as the 

overall visual impression presented by the Accused 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 588 Filed: 10/28/22 Page 16 of 27 PageID #:14177 Case: 22-1071 Document: 9 Page: 16 Filed: 10/28/2022
ABC CORPORATION I v.

PARTNERSHIP AND UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATIONS

17

Products. Unlike the cited prior art . . . , the 

claimed design of the ’723 Patent and the Accused 

Products share the same overall impression and 

have an integrated ‘hourglass’ body with a relatively flat surface across the top of the main body, 

arched covers over the wheel area, larger radii on 

the front and back of the underside, and elongated 

light panels on the front surface.

In the eyes of the ordinary observer, the claimed 

design of the ’723 is substantially the same as the 

visual impression presented by the Accused Products. Also, the Accused Products are closer to the 

claimed design of the ’723 Patent than to the cited 

prior art of the ’723 Patent.

J.A. 8405–07 (emphasis added). Hatch’s analysis of the 

other patents is similarly imprecise. In each case he focuses on the accused products as a group, rather than each 

product individually. 

Likewise, Plaintiffs’ memorandum in support of the 

motion for entry of a preliminary injunction grouped all 

products together as “Infringing Products.” See, e.g., 

J.A. 8280 (“In the eyes of the ordinary observer, the Infringing Products have substantially the same design as 

the [asserted] patent.”).

Even a cursory review of the four accused products 

shows that they are different from each other, display features not found in the asserted patents, and lack features 

shown in the asserted patents. For example, Accused Product D, see Appendix A, has prominent features that differ 

from the asserted patents. First, the overall shape is different—while the asserted patents have a smooth, hourglass body, Product D has a more angular shape with wheel 

caps that give the impression of a figure 8. Second, the 

wheel covers of Accused Product D have a distinctive boxy 

appearance as compared to the asserted patents. Accused 

Product D’s wheel covers cover less of the wheel than the 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 588 Filed: 10/28/22 Page 17 of 27 PageID #:14178 Case: 22-1071 Document: 9 Page: 17 Filed: 10/28/2022
ABC CORPORATION I v.

PARTNERSHIP AND UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATIONS

18

asserted patents and have angled, rather than curved, 

edges. 

Accused Product D’s shape and wheel covers also differ 

from the other Accused Products, such as Accused Product 

A, emphasizing the need for a product-by-product analysis: 

Accused Product D. Appellant’s Br. 45.

Accused Product A. Appellant’s Br. 27.

Under the circumstances here, the district court improperly failed to undertake a product-by-product analysis.9

The fourth and final problem with the preliminary injunction order is that, even if the district court were to find 

a likelihood of success as to infringement, the language of 

the injunction is overbroad under International Rectifier 

Corp. v. IXYS Corp., 383 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The 

preliminary injunction orders that “[t]he Gyroor 

9 We do not suggest that an aggregate infringement 

analysis is always improper. For example, if the accused 

products differ from each other only in insignificant details, 

an aggregate analysis may well be appropriate.

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 588 Filed: 10/28/22 Page 18 of 27 PageID #:14179 Case: 22-1071 Document: 9 Page: 18 Filed: 10/28/2022
ABC CORPORATION I v.

PARTNERSHIP AND UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATIONS

19

Defendants . . . be preliminarily enjoined and restrained 

from . . . offering for sale, selling, and importing any products . . . that include any reproduction, copy or colorable 

imitation of the design claimed in the Patents-in-Suit.” 

J.A. 23–24. The order does not mention or specifically enjoin “Accused Products A through D.”10 While the order 

allows plaintiffs to request that Amazon remove specific 

product IDs and orders Gyroor to remove specific product 

URLs, this does not narrow the scope of the injunction’s 

broad enjoining of “any reproduction, copy or colorable imitation” of the patented designs. J.A. 23–24. Under International Rectifier, preliminary injunctions that “simply 

prohibit[] future infringement of a patent” are overbroad. 

383 F.3d at 1316. The preliminary injunction must be limited to those products actually found likely to infringe and 

those “not more than colorably different.” Id. Injunctions 

that by their terms apply to “any device” within the scope 

of the patent claims do not meet the specificity requirement 

of Rule 65(d). Id.

10 Appellants also complain that the scope of the 2021 

preliminary injunction is greater than the relief that was 

requested by plaintiffs. Appellants state that plaintiffs’ 

“second preliminary injunction motion was filed against 

‘defendants in Schedule A amended on May 6, 2021,’ . . . 

[and that version of Schedule A] concerns only four ASINs 

[product ID numbers] and three types of Gyroor-Brand 

Products.” Appellant’s Br. 12 (citing J.A. 8252, 28–30). 

The order itself, however, according to appellants, “was entered against 25 ASINs and five types of Gyroor-Brand 

Products, including one type of product that was not mentioned in [plaintiffs’] second preliminary injunction motion.” Appellant’s Br. 12 (emphasis added) (citing J.A. 28–

30). For purposes of this appeal we need not resolve 

whether the injunction is overly broad in this respect as 

well. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 588 Filed: 10/28/22 Page 19 of 27 PageID #:14180 Case: 22-1071 Document: 9 Page: 19 Filed: 10/28/2022
ABC CORPORATION I v.

PARTNERSHIP AND UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATIONS

20

Similar to our decision in International Rectifier, the 

Seventh Circuit has vacated a preliminary injunction enjoining a defendant from “[u]sing, copying, disclosing, converting, appropriating, retaining, selling, transferring, or 

otherwise exploiting Patriot’s copyrights, confidential information, trade secrets, or computer files.” Patriot Homes, 

Inc. v. Forest River Hous., Inc., 512 F.3d 412, 414 (7th Cir. 

2008) (alteration in original). The injunction was deficient 

because it “use[d] a collection of verbs to prohibit [the defendant] from engaging in certain conduct, but ultimately 

it fail[ed] to detail what the conduct [was], i.e., the substance of the ‘trade secret’ or ‘confidential information’ to 

which the verbs refer.” Id. at 415. 

Here, as in International Rectifier and Patriot Homes, 

this injunction is overbroad. On remand, should a new injunction issue, the district court must describe the products 

enjoined with specificity and must not include language enjoining “any reproduction, copy or colorable imitation of the 

design claimed in the Patents-in-Suit.”

III

Appellants argue that three separate design patents—

U.S. Patent Nos. D808,856 (“D’856 patent”), D808,857, 

(“D’857 patent”), and D891,297 (“D’297 patent”)11—covering the accused products were issued by the U.S. Patent 

and Trademark Office and licensed to appellants. They assert that these patents must be “given due weight when 

conducting [the] infringement analysis” under a theory of 

separate patentability. Appellant’s Br. 24. Plaintiffs respond that appellants failed to raise this argument before 

the district court, and thus the argument is waived.

11 In the briefing below, appellants assert that Accused Product A and C are based on the D’857 patent, Accused Product B is based on the D’856 patent, and Accused 

Product D is based on the D’297 patent. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 588 Filed: 10/28/22 Page 20 of 27 PageID #:14181 Case: 22-1071 Document: 9 Page: 20 Filed: 10/28/2022
ABC CORPORATION I v.

PARTNERSHIP AND UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATIONS

21

In their briefing opposing the 2021 preliminary injunction, appellants raised the existence of the D’856, D’857, 

and D’297 patents but did not make separate patentability 

arguments or cite to any separate patentability caselaw.

As an example, Fengchi-US’s opposition to the 2021 

preliminary injunction argued:

None of the Patents-in-Suit claimed any ornamental features of the Accused Product. The ornamental differences, based on the claimed design of the 

[D’297 Patent], greatly impact the ordinary observer’s visual perception of the overall design, 

thus renders the design of accused product substantially dissimilar from the claimed designs of 

the patents-in-suit.

J.A. 8693. 

The other oppositions are similar. Before the district 

court, appellants did not make any argument for why the 

separate patentability of the D’856, D’857, and D’297 patents had any bearing on the infringement analysis. Because the argument was not properly raised, we do not 

consider it.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we hold that the district 

court erred in issuing the 2021 preliminary injunction. We 

reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent 

with this opinion. 

REVERSED AND REMANDED

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 588 Filed: 10/28/22 Page 21 of 27 PageID #:14182 Case: 22-1071 Document: 9 Page: 21 Filed: 10/28/2022
ABC CORPORATION I v.

PARTNERSHIP AND UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATIONS

22

APPENDIX A12

12 Figures are appellant’s comparison between the 

patents-in-suit and Accused Product D. Some images in 

appellants’ tables have been omitted and some images have 

been replaced with higher-quality images. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 588 Filed: 10/28/22 Page 22 of 27 PageID #:14183 Case: 22-1071 Document: 9 Page: 22 Filed: 10/28/2022
ABC CORPORATION I v.

PARTNERSHIP AND UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATIONS

23

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 588 Filed: 10/28/22 Page 23 of 27 PageID #:14184 Case: 22-1071 Document: 9 Page: 23 Filed: 10/28/2022
ABC CORPORATION I v.

PARTNERSHIP AND UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATIONS

24

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 588 Filed: 10/28/22 Page 24 of 27 PageID #:14185 Case: 22-1071 Document: 9 Page: 24 Filed: 10/28/2022
ABC CORPORATION I v.

PARTNERSHIP AND UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATIONS

25

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 588 Filed: 10/28/22 Page 25 of 27 PageID #:14186 Case: 22-1071 Document: 9 Page: 25 Filed: 10/28/2022
ABC CORPORATION I v.

PARTNERSHIP AND UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATIONS

26

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 588 Filed: 10/28/22 Page 26 of 27 PageID #:14187 Case: 22-1071 Document: 9 Page: 26 Filed: 10/28/2022
ABC CORPORATION I v.

PARTNERSHIP AND UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATIONS

27

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 588 Filed: 10/28/22 Page 27 of 27 PageID #:14188 Case: 22-1071 Document: 9 Page: 27 Filed: 10/28/2022