DCT

8:26-cv-00061

Chongqing Qiulong Technology Corp Ltd v. Xinghai Hi Tech Shenchen Technology Co Ltd

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 8:26-cv-00061, C.D. Cal., 01/08/2026
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted on the basis that Defendants are foreign corporations and have targeted consumers in the district by offering to sell and sell infringing products, maintaining a local contact address, and displaying the accused products at a trade show in Anaheim, California.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that the ornamental design of Defendants' "79BIKE" line of electric off-road motorcycles infringes a U.S. design patent protecting the appearance of Plaintiff's own e-bike.
  • Technical Context: The dispute is situated in the competitive and growing market for light electric off-road motorcycles, where distinctive product design serves as a key brand differentiator.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges a prior patent dispute in China, where Defendant Xinghai’s Chinese design patent for the accused product was invalidated over the Chinese counterpart to the patent-in-suit. Additionally, public records indicate the patent-in-suit survived an ex parte reexamination requested in October 2023, with a certificate issued in April 2024 confirming the patentability of the claimed design.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2017-03-16 U.S. Patent No. D854,456 Priority Date
2019-07-23 U.S. Patent No. D854,456 Issues
2023-03-01 Plaintiff alleges it began marking its products (approximate date)
2023-10-05 Ex Parte Reexamination of U.S. Patent No. D854,456 is requested
2024-04-18 Reexamination Certificate issues, confirming patentability of claim
2026-01-07 Defendants display accused products at AIMExpo trade show
2026-01-08 Complaint Filed

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Design Patent No. D854,456 - "Light Electric Off-Road Motorcycle"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D854,456, titled "Light Electric Off-Road Motorcycle", issued July 23, 2019.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Design patents protect ornamental appearance rather than functional solutions. The patent addresses the creation of a unique and distinctive aesthetic for a light electric off-road motorcycle.
  • The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific visual appearance of a motorcycle, characterized by a minimalist, skeletal frame that exposes the central battery and motor assembly (D’456 Patent, FIG. 1, 7). Key ornamental features include the angular main frame spars that descend from the head tube, encompass the battery pack, and connect to the swingarm pivot; the distinct shape of the battery housing itself; the upwardly swept, narrow seat that appears to float above the rear wheel; and the specific geometric relationship between these components that creates the overall visual impression (D’456 Patent, FIG. 1, 2).
  • Design Importance: The complaint alleges that this distinctive design, through substantial advertising and product quality, has earned valuable goodwill and reputation for the Plaintiff as the source of the goods (Compl. ¶16).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The patent contains a single claim for "The ornamental design for a light electric off-road motorcycle, as shown and described" (D’456 Patent, "CLAIM"). The scope of this claim is defined by the solid lines in the patent's ten figures.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The "79BIKE Falcon Pro," "79BIKE Falcon GT," and "79BIKE LYNX" light electric off-road motorcycles (collectively, the "Accused Products") (Compl. ¶19).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The Accused Products are electric off-road motorcycles advertised, offered for sale, and sold in the United States under the "79BIKE" brand (Compl. ¶¶6, 13). Defendants allegedly market these products through interactive websites and at industry trade shows, such as the AIMExpo 2026 in Anaheim, California (Compl. ¶¶7, 8). The complaint provides a photograph showing the "79Bike Falcon" and "79Bike LYNX" models on display at the AIMExpo trade show booth (Compl. p. 6, Fig. 2).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The standard for design patent infringement is the "ordinary observer" test, which asks whether an ordinary observer, familiar with the prior art, would be deceived into believing the accused design is the same as the patented design. The complaint presents its infringement theory through side-by-side visual comparisons (Compl. pp. 9-10). The core allegations are summarized below.

D854,456 Infringement Allegations

Patented Design Feature (as shown in D'456 Patent) Alleged Infringing Functionality (as shown in Accused Products) Complaint Citation Patent Citation
The overall visual impression created by the combination of the frame, battery/motor housing, seat, and suspension geometry. The Accused Products are alleged to embody the same overall design and visual impression as the patented design. ¶22 FIG. 1, 7
A skeletal main frame defined by two primary spars descending at a steep angle from the head tube to the swingarm pivot. The Accused Products feature a visually similar skeletal frame with primary spars following a nearly identical path and angle. p. 9 FIG. 1
A large, rectangular battery and motor housing that serves as a central visual element, integrated within and defined by the main frame spars. The Accused Products feature a similarly shaped and positioned central battery/motor housing that dominates the motorcycle's profile. p. 9 FIG. 1, 2
A slim, upwardly angled seat that creates a visual gap between the seat's underside and the rear shock/suspension linkage. The Accused Products feature a slim, upwardly angled seat that creates a similar visual separation from the underlying mechanical components. p. 9 FIG. 1
The specific geometric arrangement of the rear swingarm, shock absorber, and linkage relative to the main frame and seat. The Accused Products utilize a rear swingarm and suspension linkage with a geometric configuration alleged to be substantially the same. p. 9 FIG. 2
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: The primary question for the court will be whether the overall visual appearance of the Accused Products is "substantially the same" as the design claimed in the ’456 Patent. A defense may focus on any minor differences in proportion, curvature, or the design of unclaimed components to argue that an ordinary observer would not be deceived.
    • Technical Questions: The dispute is not technical but rather aesthetic. The central evidentiary question will be a visual comparison of the products. The complaint's side-by-side chart directly compares a patent figure with a photograph of the "79BIKE Falcon GT" to argue for substantial similarity (Compl. p. 9).

V. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not allege indirect infringement.
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants' infringement was willful (Compl. ¶24). The factual basis for this allegation is Defendants' alleged knowledge of Surron's design rights, purportedly established during a prior proceeding in China where Defendant Xinghai's Chinese design patent was invalidated over Surron's corresponding Chinese patent (Compl. ¶¶23-24).

VI. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

  • A Question of Visual Deception: The central issue is one of visual comparison: will a fact-finder, applying the "ordinary observer" test, conclude that the overall ornamental design of the "79BIKE" motorcycles is substantially the same as the design protected by the D'456 Patent, such that a potential purchaser would be deceived?
  • The Weight of Foreign Proceedings: A key legal question will be the extent to which the prior Chinese patent invalidation proceeding can be used to establish pre-suit knowledge and intent for the purpose of proving willful infringement in the U.S., potentially leading to enhanced damages.
  • The Impact of Reexamination: A significant procedural factor will be the patent-in-suit’s successful navigation of ex parte reexamination. The confirmation of the claim's patentability by the USPTO strengthens the patent’s presumption of validity and may significantly influence case strategy and potential settlement discussions.