Abc Corporation I, Abc Corporation Ii, Ebay, Inc. v. the Partnership

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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: 1 Filed: 08/14/2025

-- 1 of 4 --

ABC CORPORATION I v.
PARTNERSHIP AND UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATIONS
2
______________________
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 J OSEPH L AMAR L OMUSCIO, 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 T AO L IU;
T IANYU J U, Pasadena, CA.
______________________
Before P ROST , 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: 2 Filed: 08/14/2025

-- 2 of 4 --

ABC CORPORATION I v.
PARTNERSHIP AND UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATIONS
3
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: 3 Filed: 08/14/2025

-- 3 of 4 --

ABC CORPORATION I v.
PARTNERSHIP AND UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATIONS
4
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
Case: 24-1471 Document: 56 Page: 4 Filed: 08/14/2025

-- 4 of 4 --