DCT

8:26-cv-00067

Chongqing Qiulong Technology Corp Ltd v. E Ride Pro Inc

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 8:26-cv-00067, C.D. Cal., 01/08/2026
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is based on Defendant's alleged residence and regular and established place of business within the Central District of California, as well as alleged acts of infringement, including offering infringing products for sale at a trade show in Anaheim.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s line of electric off-road motorcycles infringes a U.S. design patent covering the ornamental appearance of such a vehicle.
  • Technical Context: The dispute centers on the proprietary ornamental design of light electric off-road motorcycles, an expanding category within the powersports and recreational vehicle market where aesthetic differentiation can be a significant commercial factor.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that a Chinese design patent corresponding to the accused product was invalidated by the Chinese Patent Office over Plaintiff's own counterpart Chinese design patent, suggesting Defendant had pre-suit notice of Plaintiff's rights. Further, the patent-in-suit recently survived an ex parte reexamination at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, where its patentability was confirmed, strengthening its statutory presumption of validity.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2017-03-16 '456 Patent Foreign Priority Date
2019-07-23 U.S. Design Patent No. D854,456 Issued
March 2023 Plaintiff allegedly begins marking its products
2023-10-05 Reexamination requested for U.S. Design Patent No. D854,456
2024-04-18 Reexamination Certificate confirms patentability of U.S. Design Patent No. D854,456
2026-01-07 Earliest specific date of alleged infringing activity (AIMExpo trade show)
2026-01-08 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. 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 "’456 Patent").

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Design patents protect ornamental appearance, not technical function. The objective is to create a new, original, and ornamental design for an article of manufacture that distinguishes it aesthetically from prior designs.
  • The Patented Solution: The ’456 Patent claims the specific, overall visual impression of a light electric off-road motorcycle. The design is characterized by the interplay of the shapes and contours of the main frame, the central battery and motor housing, the upwardly angled seat, and the rear suspension assembly, as depicted in solid lines across multiple figures (D854,456 Patent, FIG. 1, DESCRIPTION). Elements shown in broken lines, such as the wheels and handlebars, are not part of the claimed design and serve only to illustrate the environment.
  • Technical Importance: The complaint alleges that this distinctive design has "earned valuable and residual goodwill and reputation for Surron," suggesting the design's aesthetic is a key market differentiator for its products (Compl. ¶9).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of the patent generally, which contains a single claim (Compl. ¶1).
  • The claim protects: "The ornamental design for a light electric off-road motorcycle, as shown and described" (D854,456 Patent, CLAIM).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused products are the "Pro SR," "Pro SS 3.0," "Pro SS 2.0," and "Pro S" models of light electric off-road motorcycles (Compl. ¶12).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint identifies the accused instrumentalities as electric off-road motorcycles that Defendant sells, offers for sale, or imports into the United States (Compl. ¶12). Plaintiff specifically alleges that Defendant was actively marketing these products at the AIMExpo 2026 trade show in Anaheim, California (Compl. ¶13). Promotional brochures included in the complaint depict the motorcycles and list various performance specifications, positioning them in the e-moto market (Compl. ¶¶14, Figs. 3-4). A photo from the trade show floor shows the "E Ride Pro SR" model on display (Compl. ¶14, Fig. 2).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The central theory of infringement for a design patent is that an accused product's design is substantially the same as the patented design in the eyes of an "ordinary observer" familiar with the prior art. The complaint alleges that the Accused Products embody a design that is either the same as or a colorable imitation of the design claimed in the ’456 Patent (Compl. ¶¶12, 15).

To support this allegation, the complaint provides a side-by-side visual comparison table (Compl. pp. 9-10). This table juxtaposes line drawings from the ’456 Patent against photographs of the accused "Pro SR," "Pro SS 3.0," "Pro SS 2.0," and "Pro S" models, inviting a direct comparison of their overall ornamental appearance (Compl. ¶17, pp. 9-10). This visual evidence is the primary basis for the plaintiff's assertion that an ordinary observer would be deceived into believing the designs are the same (Compl. ¶17).

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: The infringement analysis will likely focus on the overall visual effect created by the elements shown in solid lines in the patent figures (e.g., the frame geometry, battery housing, and swingarm) compared to the corresponding features on the accused products. A potential point of contention may be whether the similarity in these claimed portions is sufficient to create an overall impression of sameness, even if there are differences in the unclaimed portions (e.g., wheels, tires, handlebars) or other minor features.
    • Technical Questions: Since this is a design patent case, the dispute is not about technical operation but about ornamental appearance. The key question is factual: Does the visual appearance of the accused products appropriate the novel ornamental features of the patented design, thereby creating a substantially similar overall impression?

V. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not plead separate counts for induced or contributory infringement, focusing its allegations on direct infringement (Compl. ¶¶11-20).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint seeks a finding of willful infringement and enhanced damages (Prayer for Relief ¶4). The primary factual basis for this allegation is Defendant's alleged continued infringement after being placed on notice of Plaintiff’s design rights (Compl. ¶19). This notice is allegedly evidenced by a prior proceeding in which the Chinese Patent Office purportedly found a Chinese design patent for the accused product's design to be invalid over the Plaintiff's corresponding Chinese patent (Compl. ¶18).

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

  • A core issue will be one of visual identity: From the perspective of an ordinary observer familiar with prior art in the electric motorcycle field, is the overall ornamental design of the accused E Ride Pro products substantially the same as the specific design claimed in the ’456 Patent?
  • A key question for damages will be one of willfulness: Does the evidence, particularly the alleged outcome of the prior Chinese patent proceeding involving the parties' corresponding designs, establish that the Defendant knew or should have known its actions constituted an unjustifiably high risk of infringing a valid patent?
  • A potential evidentiary question will be one of prior art context: While the ’456 Patent’s validity was confirmed in reexamination, the ultimate infringement analysis by the fact-finder will require comparing the designs within the context of the relevant prior art to determine the scope of the claimed design and whether the accused products are, in fact, substantially similar.