IP Law Daily, PATENT—Fed. Cir.: Summary judgment affirmed in hoverboard design patent dispute, (Aug 18, 2025)
Law Firms Mentioned:Glacier Law LLP | Stinson LLP
Organizations Mentioned:FengchiUS | Gaodeshang-US | Gyroor | Gyroor-US | Gyroshoes | HGSM | Hangzhou Chic Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd. | Stinson Leonard Street, LLP | Unicorn Global, Inc. | Urbanmax
By Kevin M. Finson, J.D.
A district court’s finding that accused products were not substantially similar to asserted design patents was affirmed because the trial court had properly disregarded shared elements which were also found in the prior art.
An Illinois district court did not err in determining that sellers of hoverboard products were entitled to summary judgment of non-infringement of a competitor’s design patents, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has held. On remand, the district court had properly applied the appellate court’s prior instructions to disregard those elements shared by the design patents, the accused products, and the prior art (ABC Corp. I v. Hangzhou Chic Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd., No. 24-1471 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 14, 2025)).
Hangzhou Chic Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd. (Hangzhou) was the owner of U.S. Patents Nos. D737,723; D738,256; D784,195; and D785,112, which were design patents related to hoverboard products. Hangzhou and its exclusive U.S. distributor, Unicorn Global, Inc., brought suit against numerous entities including Urbanmax, Gaodeshang-US, Gyroor-US, Gyroor, FengchiUS, Gyroshoes, and HGSM for infringement of the design patents. The district court previously entered a preliminary injunction against Gyroor’s sale of its accused products, which the Federal Circuit reversed and remanded. ABC Corp. v. Unincorporated Ass’s Identified on Schedule A, 54 F.4th 934 (Fed. Cir. 2022). The Federal Circuit found, in part, that the district court erred by not considering the prior art in its ordinary observer test analysis and by not applying the test on a product-by-product basis.
After remand, Gyroor moved for summary judgment, which the district court granted. The trial court granted summary judgment of non-infringement on the basis that the accused hoverboard products were not substantially similar to the design patents based on the “ordinary observer” test. Hangzhou appealed.
Substantial similarity. The Federal Circuit found that the district court had properly applied its guidance in a prior order vacating a preliminary injunction. In that prior order, the court had instructed that where the dominant feature shared by the design patents and the accused products (in this case an hourglass shape) was also found in the prior art, it should be disregarded in the similarity analysis. The district court had disregarded the hourglass shape and found that the remaining features were not substantially similar, and the court on appeal found no error in that analysis.
The Federal Circuit affirmed the decision of the trial court.
The case is Nos. 24-1471, 24-1472.
Judge: Chen, R.
Attorneys: Richard Joseph Lamar Lomuscio (Stinson LLP) for Hangzhou Chic Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd. and Unicorn Global, Inc. Wei Wang (Glacier Law LLP) for Urbanmax, Gaodeshang-US, Gyroor-US, Gyroor, FengchiUS, Gyroshoes, and HGSM.
Companies: Hangzhou Chic Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd.; Unicorn Global, Inc.; Urbanmax; Gaodeshang-US; Gyroor-US; Gyroor; FengchiUS; Gyroshoes; HGSM
Cases: Patent FedCirNews IllinoisNews