Abc Corporation I v. Partnership and Unincorporated Associations

Opinion

Case: 24-1471 Document: 56 Page: 1 Filed: 08/14/2025

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________

ABC CORPORATION I, ABC CORPORATION II, EBAY, INC., Plaintiffs

HANGZHOU CHIC INTELLIGENT TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD., UNICORN GLOBAL, INC., Plaintiffs-Appellants

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, TOMOLOO, ALSO OPERATING STANDALONE WEBSITES AS TOMOLOO.COM AND TOMOLOO-SCOOTER.COM, TOMOLOO-NX, AOXTECH, BETTER TOMOLOO, HGSM STOREFRONT, Defendants

GYROOR US, URBANMAX, GAODESHANGUS, FENGCHI-US, GYROOR, ALSO OPERATING STANDALONE WEBSITES AS GYROOR.COM AND GYROORBOARD.COM, HGSM, GYROSHOES, Defendants-Appellees

YANJIN-US, Respondent Case: 24-1471 Document: 56 Page: 2 Filed: 08/14/2025

______________________

2024-1471, 2024-1472 ______________________

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois in No. 1:20-cv-04806, Judge Thomas M. Durkin. ______________________

Decided: August 14, 2025 ______________________

RICHARD JOSEPH LAMAR LOMUSCIO, Stinson LLP, New York, NY, argued for plaintiffs-appellants. Also repre- sented by ADRIANNA MIRELLA CHAVEZ, Phoenix, AZ.

WEI WANG, Glacier Law LLP, New York, NY, argued for defendants-appellees. Also represented by TAO LIU; TIANYU JU, Pasadena, CA. ______________________

Before PROST, REYNA, and CHEN, Circuit Judges. CHEN, Circuit Judge. Hangzhou Chic Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd. and Unicorn Global, Inc. (collectively, Appellants) sued Ur- banmax, Gaodeshang-US, Gyroor-US, Gyroor, Fengchi- US, Gyroshoes, and HGSM (collectively, Appellees) in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois for alleged infringement of design patents related to hoverboards. 1 The district court granted Appellees’ mo- tion for summary judgment of non-infringement, reasoning that the Appellees’ hoverboard products were not

1 U.S. Patent Nos. D737,723; D738,256; D784,195; and D785,112. Case: 24-1471 Document: 56 Page: 3 Filed: 08/14/2025

ABC CORPORATION I v. 3 PARTNERSHIP AND UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATIONS

substantially similar to Appellants’ design patents. Hang- zhou Chic Intell. Tech. Co. v. Gyroor, 711 F. Supp. 3d 966, 969 (N.D. Ill. 2024) (Decision). We find no reversible error in the district court’s determinations and affirm its grant of summary judgment of non-infringement. 2 The district court properly applied this Court’s guid- ance from our prior decision vacating the district court’s 2021 preliminary injunction. See ABC Corp. I v. P’ship & Unincorporated Ass’ns. Identified on Schedule “A”, 52 F.4th 934, 937 (Fed. Cir. 2022). There, we instructed that “where a dominant feature of the patented design and the accused products—here the hourglass shape—appears in the prior art, the focus of the infringement substantial similarity analysis in most cases will be on other features of the de- sign.” Id. at 942. Further, “[t]he shared dominant feature from the prior art will be no more than a background fea- ture of the design.” Id. We specifically noted that U.S. Pa- tent No. D739,906, a prior art reference, “is highly relevant to the question of infringement because it discloses an ‘hourglass’ shape, a prominent feature common to the as- serted patents and most of the accused products.” Id. at 943. Consistent with our instructions, the district court compared the design patents’ and accused products’ re- maining elements, including the fender shape, “neck” structure, foot pad designs, and lights. Decision, 711 F. Supp. 3d at 971–76. For example, the district court highlighted the “angu- lar,” “mostly flat and only partially curved” appearance of the accused fenders compared to the “curved” appearance of the patented fenders. Id. at 971. The court also empha- sized the differences in the “necks” of the patented designs,

2 We also deny Appellees’ related motion for sanc- tions alleging that this appeal is frivolous. Case: 24-1471 Document: 56 Page: 4 Filed: 08/14/2025

explaining that the lower neck on the accused products “ac- centuates the greater size of the foot pads.” Id. In addition to these structural differences, the court identified decora- tive variations in the lights, foot pad, and neck designs. Id. at 971–72. The district court appropriately examined how the de- tails of each design contributed to the overall visual im- pression and concluded “[t]hese differently designed features combine to create an overall effect that is not sub- stantially similar to any of the three patents-in-suit, when discounting the dominant hourglass shape.” Id. at 972. We have considered Appellants’ remaining arguments and find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons, we affirm. AFFIRMED