Abc Corporation I v. Partnership and Unincorporated Associations

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        NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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




 2                                     ABC CORPORATION I v.
               PARTNERSHIP AND UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATIONS


                    ______________________

                     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




 4                                   ABC CORPORATION I v.
             PARTNERSHIP AND UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATIONS


 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