Yi Pu Tianjin Intelligent Technology Co Ltd v. Gyroor

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Yipu (Tianjin) Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd. (China)
  • Defendant: The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A (China and other foreign jurisdictions)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: YK Law LLP
• Case Identification: 1:25-cv-00081, N.D. Ill., 02/07/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper because the Defendants are foreign entities who may be sued in any judicial district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ electric bicycles, sold online, infringe its U.S. design patent for an "Electric Bicycle."
• Technical Context: The case concerns the ornamental design of electric bicycles, a growing consumer product category characterized by a wide variety of aesthetic and functional designs.
• Key Procedural History: The filing is an Amended Complaint. The Defendants are a group of unnamed partnerships and associations, a common litigation strategy targeting diffuse, often foreign-based, online sellers who allegedly operate multiple e-commerce storefronts.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. D1,016,678 S - "Electric Bicycle"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. D1,016,678 S, "Electric Bicycle", issued March 5, 2024.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: Design patents do not address technical problems; they protect the novel, non-obvious, and ornamental appearance of an article of manufacture. The goal is to create a unique aesthetic for an electric bicycle that is visually distinguishable from prior designs (D'678 Patent, Title, Claim).
• The Patented Solution: The patent protects the specific visual appearance of an electric bicycle as depicted in its seven figures (D'678 Patent, FIGS. 1-7). Key ornamental features shown in the solid-line drawings include the geometric frame structure, the placement and shape of the battery pack below the main crossbar, a wide, flat seat, a prominent round headlamp, and the overall retro, motorcycle-inspired styling (D'678 Patent, FIG. 1, FIG. 4). The design is defined by the totality of its visual features as shown in the patent's drawings (D'678 Patent, Description).
• Technical Importance: The complaint alleges that this distinctive patented design is instantly recognizable and has been subject to substantial marketing and promotion, making it well-recognized by consumers (Compl. ¶¶ 6, 8).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The patent contains a single claim: "The ornamental design for an electric bicycle, as shown and described" (D'678 Patent, Claim).
• Because this is a design patent, the claim is not broken into textual elements but is defined by the illustrations of the bicycle provided in Figures 1-7.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are "Infringing Products" and "counterfeit products," specifically electric bicycles sold by the Defendants through e-commerce stores on Amazon (Compl. ¶¶ 2, 4, 13).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint describes the accused products as electric bicycles that are "inferior imitations" of Plaintiff's authorized products (Compl. ¶24). The allegations center on the appearance of the products and the manner in which they are sold. The complaint alleges Defendants operate numerous e-commerce stores designed to appear as authorized retailers to "unknowing consumers," leveraging Plaintiff's patented design to attract customers (Compl. ¶¶ 15, 17). The complaint references screenshots in Exhibit B, which allegedly show checkout pages for purchasing these products for delivery into the judicial district (Compl. ¶4).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not contain a claim chart but outlines a narrative theory of infringement. The central test for design patent infringement is whether an "ordinary observer," giving the matter the attention a typical purchaser would, would be deceived into purchasing the accused product believing it to be the patented one.

The complaint alleges infringement based on the assertion that Defendants are making, using, offering for sale, and selling products that incorporate the ornamental design claimed in the D'678 Patent (Compl. ¶28). The core of the allegation is that the Defendants have engaged in "slavish copying" of the Plaintiff's unique and distinctive ornamental design (Compl. ¶10). The complaint asserts that this copying is likely to cause confusion to an ordinary observer (Compl. ¶10). To support this, the complaint states that a direct visual comparison between the accused products and the claimed design is provided in an exhibit. This exhibit provides a side-by-side comparison of the patented design and the allegedly infringing products (Compl. ¶12, Exhibit C).

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: The primary legal question will be whether the accused products are "substantially the same" as the design claimed in the D'678 Patent. This will involve a visual comparison of the overall ornamental appearance of the Defendants' products with the patent's figures.
• Technical Questions: A key evidentiary question will be whether the visual evidence, such as that allegedly contained in Exhibit C, demonstrates that the accused products are so similar to the patented design that they would deceive an ordinary observer. The focus will be on the overall design, not on minor differences.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In design patent cases, the "claim" is understood through the drawings. The central issue is the scope of the design as a whole, rather than the construction of individual text-based terms.

• The Term: "The ornamental design for an electric bicycle, as shown and described."
• Context and Importance: The entire infringement analysis hinges on the scope of the visual design protected by the patent. The court's interpretation of what is "shown and described" in the patent's figures will define the boundaries of the Plaintiff's rights. Practitioners may focus on this as the core of the dispute, as the visual comparison between the patent drawings and the accused products is the dispositive test.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party arguing for broader scope might emphasize the overall impression and general configuration of the design, arguing that minor differences in the accused product should not defeat a finding of infringement if the overall aesthetic is the same. The focus would be on the novel combination of elements (frame geometry, seat style, headlight) that create a singular visual impression (D'678 Patent, FIG. 1).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party arguing for a narrower scope would point to the specific, detailed features depicted in the solid lines of all seven figures, arguing that the claim is limited to the exact design shown. Any deviation in an accused product from these specific details could be argued to place it outside the scope of the claim (D'678 Patent, FIGS. 1-7).

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint does not contain a separate count for indirect infringement, but the prayer for relief seeks to enjoin Defendants from "inducing, or enabling others to sell or pass off any products as genuine products covered by the D’678 Patent" (Compl. p. 10, ¶1(b)).

Willful Infringement

The complaint alleges that Defendants have "knowingly and willfully" used the D'678 Patent in connection with their infringing activities (Compl. ¶22). The basis for this allegation appears to be the assertion of "slavish copying" and the continued sale of products that are allegedly direct imitations of Plaintiff's patented design (Compl. ¶10).

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

1. The "Ordinary Observer" Test: A central issue will be one of visual comparison: are the accused electric bicycles sold by the Defendants "substantially the same" in ornamental design as the one "shown and described" in the D'678 Patent, such that an ordinary observer would be deceived? The outcome will depend entirely on a visual assessment of the products against the patent's drawings.
2. Enforceability and Jurisdiction: A key practical question will be one of enforcement: can the Plaintiff effectively obtain jurisdiction over and enforce a judgment against the numerous, allegedly foreign-based and pseudonymous e-commerce operators listed in Schedule A? The complaint's structure suggests the case may face significant procedural hurdles related to identifying and serving the proper parties and collecting any potential damages award.
3. Willfulness and Damages: A third question will concern culpability: do the facts, particularly the allegation of "slavish copying" and the operation of allegedly deceptive storefronts, rise to the level of willful infringement? This would determine Plaintiff's eligibility for enhanced damages or attorney's fees.