DCT

1:20-cv-04127

Unicorn Global Inc v. E Link Technology Co Ltd

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:20-cv-04127, N.D. Ill., 10/14/2020
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Northern District of Illinois because Defendants, as foreign entities, have committed acts of infringement in the United States, including selling and offering to sell accused products into the district via the internet. The complaint also alleges that lead Defendant E-Link has consented to venue in the district by previously filing other lawsuits there.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiffs allege that Defendants’ self-balancing electric vehicles, commonly known as hoverboards, infringe six U.S. patents related to the vehicles' fundamental mechanical structure and operation.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns two-wheeled, self-balancing personal mobility devices controlled by a user shifting their weight on two independently rotating foot platforms.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges a prior business relationship between Plaintiff Hangzhou Chic and Defendant E-Link, including a license to Chinese patents that expired in November 2017. It further alleges that E-Link continued unauthorized sales, leading to a settlement agreement in February 2018, which E-Link subsequently breached, resulting in a court judgment in Shenzhen, China. Plaintiffs also allege E-Link had knowledge of the U.S. patents-in-suit due to prior lawsuits filed in March 2019 and direct communications between the parties.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2014-06-13 Earliest Priority Date for all Patents-in-Suit
2016-06-28 U.S. Patent No. 9,376,155 Issues
2016-09-27 U.S. Patent No. 9,452,802 Issues
2016-11-23 E-Link’s license of Plaintiffs' Chinese patents begins
2017-11-23 E-Link’s license of Plaintiffs' Chinese patents expires
2018-02-23 Settlement reached between Plaintiffs and E-Link
2019-03-25 Shenzhen court issues judgment against E-Link for breach
2019-11-26 U.S. Patent No. 10,486,764 Issues
2020-03-24 U.S. Patent No. 10,597,107 Issues
2020-06-30 U.S. Patent No. 10,696,347 Issues
2020-06-30 U.S. Patent No. 10,696,348 Issues
2020-10-14 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,376,155 - "Electric Balance Vehicle"

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes prior art self-balancing vehicles as requiring an operating rod for steering and having a single, non-rotating foot platform, which prevents a user from controlling the vehicle "merely through the feet" (’155 Patent, col. 1:24-27).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a self-balancing vehicle with two separate foot platforms that can rotate relative to each other around a central pivot. This is achieved through a three-layer mechanical structure comprising a top cover (the foot platforms), a bottom cover, and a distinct "inner cover" fixed between them that provides the core structural framework (’155 Patent, col. 1:30-50). A rotating mechanism connects the two halves of this structure, allowing a user's foot movements to be translated into directional control via sensors and hub motors (’155 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 2).
  • Technical Importance: This architecture enabled the compact, steering-column-free "hoverboard" design, which relies on intuitive user foot and weight shifts for control.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 11, and 16 (Compl. ¶74).
  • The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
    • An electric balance vehicle comprising: a top cover comprising a first top cover and a second top cover disposed symmetrically and rotatable relative to each other;
    • a bottom cover fixed to the top cover, the bottom cover comprising a first bottom cover and a second bottom cover disposed symmetrically and rotatable relative to each other;
    • an inner cover fixed between the top cover and the bottom cover, the inner cover comprising a first inner cover and a second inner cover disposed symmetrically and rotatable relative to each other;
    • a rotating mechanism fixed between the first inner cover and the second inner cover;
    • two wheels rotatably fixed at two sides of the inner cover;
    • two hub motors fixed in the two wheels;
    • a plurality of sensors disposed between the bottom cover and the inner cover;
    • a power supply fixed between the first bottom cover and the first inner cover; and
    • a controller fixed between the second bottom cover and the second inner cover, wherein the controller is electrically connected with the sensors, power supply, and hub motors to control the wheels based on sensor signals.

U.S. Patent No. 9,452,802 - "Electric Balance Vehicle"

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The problem is identical to that described in the related ’155 Patent: enabling control of a self-balancing vehicle using only the feet, without a steering rod (’802 Patent, col. 1:35-40).
  • The Patented Solution: The ’802 Patent discloses the same core three-layer (top, inner, bottom cover) structure with a central rotating mechanism as the ’155 Patent. However, its claims explicitly recite the presence of "two pedals" that are "fixed to the top cover and the inner cover," emphasizing the user-interface aspect of the dual-platform design (’802 Patent, Abstract; col. 6:1-3).
  • Technical Importance: As with the ’155 Patent, this technology is foundational to the modern hoverboard form factor.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claims 3, 4, 5, 9, and 14 (Compl. ¶86).
  • The essential elements of independent claim 1 are nearly identical to claim 1 of the ’155 Patent, with the addition of a final limitation:
    • An electric balance vehicle comprising: a top cover, a bottom cover, an inner cover, a rotating mechanism (with bearings, shaft sleeve, and snap springs), two wheels, two hub motors, a plurality of sensors, a power supply, and a controller;
    • and two pedals, wherein the pedals are fixed to the top cover and the inner cover.

U.S. Patent No. 10,696,347 - "Electric Vehicle"

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent focuses on the structural and mechanical aspects of the vehicle, claiming a "housing" with a "support structure" inside. It specifically claims a "limiting shaft" disposed within the housing to limit the degree of rotation between the two sides of the vehicle.
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1, 10, and 15 are asserted (Compl. ¶96).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the "Type 1 Hoverboards" have a housing, support structure, rotating mechanism, and limiting shaft that infringe the claims (Compl. ¶97, ¶103, ¶107).

U.S. Patent No. 10,696,348 - "Electric Vehicle"

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent focuses on the materials used in the vehicle's construction. Its claims require the platforms (e.g., top cover) and the bottom covers to be made of different materials that "differ in strength," providing a structural advantage.
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1, 8, and 16 are asserted (Compl. ¶113).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges the "Accused Instrumentalities" are constructed with platforms of a first material and bottom covers of a second, different-strength material, thereby infringing the claims (Compl. ¶114, ¶119, ¶124).

U.S. Patent No. 10,486,764 - "Electric Vehicle"

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes the invention in more functional terms, claiming a "first platform" and a "second platform" connected by a "rotation mechanism." It also recites a "limiting mechanism" to constrain the relative rotation between the platforms.
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1, 15, and 23 are asserted (Compl. ¶131). The provided patent document appears to be missing claim 23, but the complaint asserts it.
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges the "Accused Instrumentalities" embody the claimed arrangement of two platforms, a rotation mechanism, and a limiting mechanism (Compl. ¶132, ¶140).

U.S. Patent No. 10,597,107 - "Electric Vehicle"

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent returns to a structural focus similar to the ’155 Patent. Its claims recite the three-layer structure of a top cover, a bottom cover, and an inner cover, with the inner cover comprising first and second parts that are rotatable relative to each other via a rotating mechanism.
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1, 8, 10, and 25 are asserted (Compl. ¶148).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges the "Type 1 Hoverboards" possess the claimed three-layer structure with a rotatable inner cover (Compl. ¶149, ¶152, ¶154, ¶165).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

  • Product Identification: The complaint identifies two categories of accused products: "Type 1 Hoverboards" (models EL-ES03, EL-ES03R, EL-ES06 TDLB0001, EL-ES05, and EL-ES11) and "Type 2 Hoverboards" (models EL-ES09D, EL-ES09F), collectively referred to as the "Accused Instrumentalities" (Compl. ¶36).
  • Functionality and Market Context: The accused products are described as electric self-balancing vehicles that a user stands on and controls by shifting their weight on two separate foot platforms, which pivot relative to each other (Compl. ¶75, ¶87). Defendants are alleged to import, sell, and offer for sale these products throughout the United States via numerous online storefronts on Amazon.com, eBay.com, and Walmart.com, as well as the website www.lamboscooter.com (Compl. ¶¶ 33, 36).
    No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

'155 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a top cover comprising a first top cover and a second top cover disposed symmetrically and rotatable relative to each other The accused hoverboards have a top cover with two symmetrical and rotatable halves that serve as foot platforms. ¶75 col. 4:12-18
a bottom cover fixed to the top cover, the bottom cover comprising a first bottom cover and a second bottom cover disposed symmetrically and rotatable relative to each other The accused hoverboards have a bottom cover fixed to the top cover, with two symmetrical and rotatable halves. ¶75 col. 5:6-14
an inner cover fixed between the top cover and the bottom cover, the inner cover comprising a first inner cover and a second inner cover disposed symmetrically and rotatable relative to each other The accused hoverboards allegedly contain an inner cover situated between the top and bottom covers, which is also comprised of two symmetrical and rotatable halves. ¶75 col. 5:42-50
a rotating mechanism fixed between the first inner cover and the second inner cover The accused hoverboards include a rotating mechanism that connects the two halves of the inner cover, allowing them to pivot. ¶75 col. 5:45-48
two wheels rotatably fixed at two sides of the inner cover, respectively; two hub motors fixed in the two wheels, respectively The accused hoverboards have two wheels with internal hub motors fixed to the sides of the inner cover. ¶75 col. 7:4-10
a plurality of sensors disposed between the bottom cover and the inner cover The accused hoverboards have sensors located between the bottom and inner covers to detect user input. ¶75 col. 7:20-24
a controller fixed between the second bottom cover and the second inner cover, wherein the controller is electrically connected with the plurality of sensors...and the controller controls the hub motors... The accused hoverboards have a controller that receives signals from the sensors and directs the hub motors to drive the wheels. ¶75 col. 7:25-34

'802 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
an electric balance vehicle, comprising: a top cover...a bottom cover...an inner cover...a rotating mechanism...two wheels...two hub motors...a plurality of sensors...a power supply...a controller... The complaint alleges the accused hoverboards possess all the structural and electronic components recited in the claim preamble. ¶87 col. 4:50-67
and two pedals, wherein the pedals are fixed to the top cover and the inner cover The accused hoverboards include two pedals fixed to both the top and inner covers. ¶87 col. 2:10-13

Identified Points of Contention

  • Evidentiary Questions: The complaint's infringement allegations are conclusory, stating that the accused products meet each claim limitation without providing supporting factual detail, such as photographs, schematics, or tear-down reports of the accused devices. The complaint references exhibits (e.g., Exs. A-1, A-2) that purport to show the infringing vehicles, but these exhibits are not included with the filed complaint (Compl. ¶73, ¶75). This raises the question of what evidence Plaintiffs will produce to substantiate their claims that the internal structure of the accused products matches the specific multi-layer construction required by the patents.
  • Scope Questions: The infringement theory for both patents hinges on the accused products having a distinct three-layer structure: a top cover, a bottom cover, and a separate "inner cover." A potential point of contention is whether the internal frame of the accused products constitutes an "inner cover" as claimed, or if it is an integral part of the bottom cover or another component, potentially placing it outside the literal scope of the claims.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "inner cover"
  • Context and Importance: This term is the central structural element of the asserted independent claims of the '155 and '802 patents. The definition of "inner cover" will be critical to the infringement analysis. Practitioners may focus on this term because a defendant may argue that its product's internal frame is not a separate "cover" but rather an integrated part of the housing, or that it does not meet the functional and locational requirements described in the patent.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the inner cover primarily by its location and function: it is "fixed between the top cover and the bottom cover" and serves as the internal framework to which other components like the wheels and rotating mechanism are attached (’155 Patent, Abstract; col. 5:42-48). This could support a construction that covers any distinct structural component in that location performing that role.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's detailed description and figures distinguish the "inner cover" (2) as a discrete component separate from the "top cover" (1) and "bottom cover" (3) (’155 Patent, Fig. 2). Furthermore, an embodiment describes the inner cover as being made of "aluminum alloy" while the top and bottom covers are made of "plastic," suggesting it is a structurally distinct and stronger element (’155 Patent, col. 3:5-6; col. 6:28-32). This may support a narrower construction requiring a physically separate component, potentially made of a different material than the outer shells.
  • The Term: "disposed symmetrically"
  • Context and Importance: This term is used in Claim 1 of the '155 Patent to describe the relationship between the first and second halves of the top, bottom, and inner covers. The meaning of "symmetrically" will be important for determining whether accused products with slight physical differences between their left and right halves meet this limitation.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification does not provide a specific definition of "symmetrically." This may allow for an interpretation based on the plain and ordinary meaning, which could encompass general mirror-image correspondence without requiring perfect identity in every detail.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant may argue that the term requires the two halves to be geometrically identical mirror images. The patent figures, such as the exploded view in Fig. 2, depict the first and second top covers (11, 12) and inner covers (21, 22) as being largely identical in shape and size (’155 Patent, Fig. 2). Any significant functional or structural differences between the two halves of an accused product (e.g., to accommodate different electronic components) might be argued to fall outside a strict definition of "symmetrically."

VI. Other Allegations

  • Willful Infringement: The complaint includes a count for willful infringement (Compl. ¶¶ 168-172). The allegations are based on pre-suit knowledge. Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that Defendant E-Link was a former licensee of related Chinese patents, breached a subsequent settlement agreement, had knowledge of prior U.S. lawsuits filed by Plaintiffs against other parties on related patents, and engaged in direct communications with Plaintiffs regarding U.S. patent matters (Compl. ¶¶ 67-71).

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

  • A core issue will be one of claim scope and construction: can the term "inner cover," described in the patent as a distinct structural element, be construed to read on the internal frame of the accused products? The outcome of this construction will likely determine whether a wide range of hoverboard designs infringe or fall outside the scope of the foundational patents.
  • A key threshold question will be one of evidentiary sufficiency: in the face of conclusory pleadings that lack the referenced visual evidence, what factual support can Plaintiffs provide to demonstrate that the accused products practice the specific, multi-layered mechanical structure recited in the claims, particularly the existence and function of a distinct "inner cover"?