DCT

8:26-cv-00067

Chongqing Qiulong Technology Corp Ltd v. E Ride Pro Inc

Log In
Key Events
Amended Complaint
complaint Intelligence

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 8:26-cv-00067, C.D. Cal., 04/06/2026
  • Venue Allegations: Venue for the domestic defendant, E Ride Pro Inc., is based on its alleged residence and regular and established place of business within the district. Venue for the foreign defendants is based on the general federal venue statute, which permits suing alien corporations in any judicial district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants' "E Ride Pro" line of electric off-road motorcycles infringes a design patent covering the ornamental appearance of such a vehicle.
  • Technical Context: The dispute is situated in the competitive and growing market for light electric off-road motorcycles, a sector where distinctive product design serves as a key market differentiator.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint states that the patent-in-suit successfully underwent an ex parte reexamination at the USPTO, which confirmed the patentability of the claimed design. The complaint further alleges that a Chinese design patent owned by Defendant Ningbo Yingfu, covering the design of the accused products, was invalidated by the Chinese Patent Office over Plaintiff's corresponding Chinese design patent.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2017-03-16 D854,456 Patent Priority Date
2019-07-23 U.S. Design Patent No. D854,456 Issued
2024-04-18 Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate Issued for D854456 Patent
2024-09-14 Defendants' Chinese Design Patent Allegedly Invalidated
2026-01-07 AIMExpo Trade Show Featuring Accused Products Begins
2026-04-06 First Amended Complaint Filing Date

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, "Light Electric Off-Road Motorcycle," issued July 23, 2019 (the "D'456 Patent").

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Design patents protect the ornamental appearance of an article of manufacture. The implicit problem addressed is the need for a new, original, and non-obvious ornamental design for a light electric off-road motorcycle that is aesthetically distinct from prior art designs.
  • The Patented Solution: The D'456 Patent claims the specific visual appearance of a motorcycle, not its functional or structural features D'456 Patent, Claim The claimed design is characterized by a distinctive, aggressive geometry, including the angular shape of the main frame, the integration of the battery and motor housing as a central visual element, and the continuous, flowing line formed by the seat and rear fender D'456 Patent, FIG. 1 D'456 Patent, FIG. 7 The broken lines in the patent drawings indicate that elements such as the wheels, handlebars, and suspension components are not part of the claimed design but show its environment D'456 Patent, Description
  • Technical Importance: In consumer products like motorcycles, the ornamental design is a critical aspect of brand identity and market appeal, distinguishing a product from its competitors.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • Design patents typically contain a single claim. The asserted claim is: "The ornamental design for a light electric off-road motorcycle, as shown and described." D'456 Patent, Claim
  • The "elements" of this claim are the visual features of the motorcycle depicted in solid lines in the patent's figures.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The "Pro SR, Pro SS 3.0, Pro SS 2.0, Pro S, and MINI" models of light electric off-road motorcycles, collectively referred to as the "Accused Products" Compl. ¶18

Functionality and Market Context

  • The Accused Products are electric off-road motorcycles that Defendants allegedly manufacture, import, offer for sale, and sell in the United States Compl. ¶18 Compl. ¶25 The complaint alleges these products were actively promoted to U.S. consumers, for example, by being displayed at the AIMExpo 2026 trade show in Anaheim, California Compl. ¶19 The complaint includes a photograph showing the Defendants' "E RIDE PRO" booth at the trade show, where multiple motorcycles are displayed Compl. p. 8, Figure 1 Promotional brochures for the accused "E Ride Pro SR" and "E Ride Pro SS" models were also allegedly distributed at the event Compl. p. 10, Figure 3 Compl. p. 11, Figure 4

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 alleges that the Accused Products meet this standard Compl. ¶27 The complaint presents its infringement theory through a series of side-by-side visual comparisons Compl. ¶¶27-28

D854,456 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
The ornamental design for a light electric off-road motorcycle, as shown and described. The overall ornamental design of the Accused Products, which the complaint alleges is substantially the same as the patented design in the eye of an ordinary observer. This allegation is supported by visual comparisons highlighting similarities in the overall profile, frame geometry, battery and motor housing configuration, and seat-to-fender lines. A representative visual comparison shows the patented design next to a photograph of the accused "Pro SR" model. ¶27; p. 13 FIG. 1; FIG. 2

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: A central issue will be the overall visual impression created by the designs. The analysis may focus on whether the similarities in the core frame and bodywork-the elements shown in solid lines in the patent-are substantial enough to cause an ordinary observer to be deceived, notwithstanding any differences in the unclaimed elements (e.g., wheels, handlebars) or minor variations in the claimed elements.
  • Evidentiary Questions: The infringement analysis will depend on a visual comparison between the D'456 Patent's drawings and the actual Accused Products. A key question is whether the visual similarities alleged in the complaint Compl. pp. 13-22, such as the frame structure and body lines, are sufficient to outweigh any perceptible differences from the perspective of the ordinary observer.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In design patent litigation, claim construction focuses on the scope of the claimed design as a whole, rather than on specific textual terms.

  • The Term: "The ornamental design ... as shown and described."
  • Context and Importance: The scope of protection is defined by the solid lines in the patent drawings. The patent explicitly states that "The broken lines in the drawings illustrate portions of the light electric off-road motorcycle that form no part of the claimed design" D'456 Patent, Description The interpretation of what is included in, and excluded from, the claimed design will be fundamental to the infringement analysis. Practitioners may focus on this distinction because the infringement test requires comparing the accused product to the claimed design, not to the patentee's commercial product or the environmental features shown in broken lines.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue that the claim protects the overall visual "gestalt" or impression of the design, focusing on the novel combination of shapes and their interrelationship rather than on the precise dimensions of each individual element.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue that the claim is limited to the specific shapes and contours depicted in the solid-line drawings. Any significant deviation in the frame's angles, the curvature of the seat, or the proportions of the bodywork in the accused design could be argued to place it outside the scope of the claim.

VI. Other Allegations

Willful Infringement

  • The complaint alleges that Defendants' infringement was willful Compl. ¶29 The primary factual basis for this allegation is Defendants' alleged notice of Surron's design rights, purportedly established through a prior patent invalidation proceeding in China Compl. ¶23 The complaint alleges that on September 14, 2024, the Chinese Patent Office invalidated a Chinese design patent owned by Defendant Ningbo Yingfu for the Accused Products' design, finding it anticipated by Surron's corresponding Chinese design patent Compl. ¶23 This event allegedly occurred well before Defendants promoted the Accused Products at the January 2026 AIMExpo trade show, suggesting that Defendants continued their infringing activities despite having knowledge of Plaintiff's superior design rights Compl. ¶29

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

  • A core issue will be one of visual comparison and scope: From the perspective of an ordinary observer familiar with the prior art, is the overall ornamental appearance of the various "E Ride Pro" models substantially the same as the specific design claimed in the D'456 Patent, or are the visual differences sufficient to avoid deception?
  • A second critical issue will be one of knowledge and intent: What legal effect, if any, will the alleged 2024 invalidation of Defendants' Chinese design patent have on the claim for willful infringement? This prior inter-partes proceeding may be presented as strong evidence of pre-suit knowledge of Plaintiff's design rights, potentially supporting a finding of willfulness and a basis for enhanced damages.
Loading Amended Complaint