DCT

1:26-cv-09457

Shenzhen Chitado Technology Co Ltd v. Windhorse Tech Inc

Log In
Key Events
Amended Complaint
complaint Intelligence

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:26-cv-09457, N.D. Ill., 08/20/2026
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on Defendants having purposefully directed activities at Illinois by advertising, selling, and shipping Accused Products to consumers in the district. For defendants not resident in the U.S., venue is also asserted under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c)(3).
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants' network for manufacturing and selling electric riding devices infringes two U.S. patents related to the design of electric scooters with integrated storage features.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns the field of personal electric mobility devices, specifically focusing on scooter designs that incorporate a central storage basket or cavity to enhance user utility.
  • Key Procedural History: The action was initiated via a First Amended Complaint, in which Plaintiff withdrew claims against several previously named defendants without prejudice. The complaint details a complex network of "Windhorse Defendants" and "Private-Label Defendants" alleged to be operating in concert.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2023-09-08 FCC Letter of Attestation mentioned in complaint
2024-07-03 Priority date for '534 and '012 Patents
2025-09-26 Filing date for applications leading to both Asserted Patents
2026-04-07 U.S. Patent No. 12,595,012 B2 issues
2026-04-XX Alleged sales of Accused Products span from April 2026
2026-06-09 U.S. Patent No. 12,649,534 B2 issues
2026-08-20 First Amended Complaint filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 12,649,534

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. US12649534B2, titled "Electric Riding Device," issued on June 9, 2026 Compl. ¶34

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The complaint does not quote the problem description from the patent's background section, but the invention is directed to improving the utility of personal electric vehicles by integrating cargo-carrying capabilities Compl. ¶37 '012 Patent, col. 1:21-24
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is an electric riding device featuring a frame with a "substantially flat support plate" positioned between the front and rear wheels Compl. ¶36 This plate supports a "storage cavity" that is notably longer than it is wide or tall, featuring an open top and removable sidewalls. The design also specifies the placement of footrests near the front of the support plate, distinct from the main platform area Compl. ¶36
  • Technical Importance: This design integrates a significant, dedicated storage space into the core frame of a personal electric vehicle, enhancing its practicality for errands and personal transport beyond simple recreation Compl. ¶1 Compl. ¶37

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent Claims 1, 6, 11, and 15 Compl. ¶35
  • Independent Claim 15, identified as representative, includes the following essential elements Compl. ¶36:
    • An electric riding device with a frame body defining a "substantially flat support plate".
    • A front wheel, rear wheel, handlebar assembly, seat, and power device.
    • A "storage cavity" within the frame body, with a longitudinal dimension greater than its lateral and height dimensions.
    • The storage cavity is at least partially defined by a left and a right sidewall, which are "opposed to each other" and extend vertically from the edges of the support plate.
    • Left and right footrests are disposed on opposite sides, with installation positions "longitudinally nearer a ... front end of the support plate".
    • The left and right sidewalls are "removably disposed on the frame body".
    • The storage cavity has an "open top".
  • The complaint asserts dependent claims 2-4 and 6-15, which add limitations such as dimensional ratios, openwork basket structures, and threaded mounting features Compl. ¶35 Compl. ¶37

U.S. Patent No. 12,595,012

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. US12595012B2, titled "Electric Riding Device," issued on April 7, 2026 Compl. ¶38

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent's background section notes the widespread use of vehicles for public transit, cargo logistics, and personal commuting, implying a need for versatile personal transport solutions '012 Patent, col. 1:21-28
  • The Patented Solution: The invention provides an electric riding device with a frame comprising a "substantially flat base portion" situated between upward-extending front and rear portions that support the handlebar and seat, respectively '012 Patent, abstract This configuration creates a low-slung, stable area for a "storage basket removably installed on the frame body" to make "substantially horizontal contact" with the base portion, complemented by front-positioned footrests for the rider '012 Patent, col. 5:3-19 This structure is illustrated in patent figures such as FIG. 1A, which shows the storage basket (700A) situated on the flat base of the frame (100A).
  • Technical Importance: The design provides a low center of gravity for cargo by placing the storage basket on a flat base portion of the frame, which may improve stability and handling compared to conventional scooters with cargo racks mounted high above the wheels.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent Claims 1 and 7 Compl. ¶39
  • Independent Claim 7, identified as representative, includes the following essential elements Compl. ¶39:
    • An electric riding device with a frame body, front and rear wheels, handlebar, seat, and power device.
    • The frame body comprises a "substantially flat base portion", a "front raised portion", and a "rear raised portion".
    • A "storage basket removably installed on the frame body".
    • The storage basket defines a "contact surface" configured to permit stable placement on the base portion, such that the contact surfaces are in "substantially horizontal contact".
    • Left and right footrests disposed on opposite sides, with installation positions "longitudinally nearer a ... front-end of the base portion".
  • The complaint asserts dependent claims 2 and 4-6, which add limitations like a mesh structure, side-mounted footrests, and specific adapter mechanisms Compl. ¶¶39-40

III. The Accused Instrumentality

  • Product Identification: The "Accused Products" are identified as the WINDHORSE C2 Cargo, C3, C3 Max, and D1 models, along with "materially identical" C3 products sold under the RIDWIND and SEHOMY brand names Compl. ¶1
  • Functionality and Market Context:
    • The Accused Products are electric riding devices sold in the U.S. through various online storefronts, including Amazon.com, Walmart.com, and TikTok Shop Compl. ¶2
    • The complaint alleges these products incorporate key features from the asserted patents, including a "substantially flat base or support plate," a "removable, substantially horizontal storage basket or storage cavity," and "front-positioned footrests" Compl. ¶3
    • The complaint presents a table summarizing the various defendant entities and their associated online storefronts, alleging a "coordinated manufacturing, supply, importation, distribution, branding, and online-sales network" Compl. ¶1 Compl. ¶16 This table, provided as a visual in the complaint, illustrates the alleged commercial relationships between the defendants.
    • The complaint alleges that defendants operating under the RIDWIND and SEHOMY names sell the same "C3" product platform, which is manufactured by Defendant Dongguan Wind Horse Compl. ¶¶24-25

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references claim-chart exhibits (Exhibits 3A-3C and 7A-7C) that were not provided for this analysis. The narrative infringement theory presented in the complaint is summarized below.

  • '534 Patent Infringement Allegations: The complaint alleges that the Accused Products, including the WINDHORSE C2 Cargo, C3, and C3 Max models, practice every limitation of Claims 1-4 and 6-15 of the '534 Patent Compl. ¶3 Compl. ¶48 Compl. ¶54 The allegations state that these products include the claimed "frame and substantially flat base or support plate; removable, substantially horizontal storage basket or storage cavity; opposed or openwork sidewalls and open top; front-positioned footrests; threaded mounting and adapter structures; reinforcing ribs; and power device mounted below the plate" Compl. ¶3
  • '012 Patent Infringement Allegations: The complaint similarly alleges that the Accused Products practice every limitation of Claims 1-2 and 4-7 of the '012 Patent Compl. ¶3 Compl. ¶48 Compl. ¶63 The infringement theory for the '012 Patent relies on the same set of accused product features as for the '534 Patent, with the complaint asserting that the products "display the same claim-relevant structure" for both patents Compl. ¶55 The complaint alternatively pleads infringement under the doctrine of equivalents Compl. ¶48 Compl. ¶63
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A central issue may be the construction of the term "substantially flat" as it appears in the claims of both patents. The litigation may explore how much deviation from perfect planarity is permissible for the accused "support plate" or "base portion" to fall within the claim scope.
    • Technical Questions: The claims require a "removably" installed or disposed storage basket or sidewalls. A point of contention may be the degree and method of removability. The analysis will likely focus on whether the method of attachment in the Accused Products (e.g., requiring tools versus a quick-release mechanism) meets the claimed "removable" limitation as construed by the court.
    • Functional Questions: Claim 7 of the '012 Patent requires "substantially horizontal contact" between the basket and the base. The parties may dispute whether the actual contact interface of the Accused Products achieves this geometric and functional requirement.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For both the '534 and '012 Patents

  • The Term: "substantially flat"
  • Context and Importance: This term defines the core platform of the claimed device. Its construction is critical because it dictates the fundamental geometry of the frame and its interaction with the storage basket. The infringement analysis for both patents will likely depend heavily on whether the accused devices' base platforms are deemed "substantially flat."
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Practitioners may argue that the term "substantially" is a term of approximation, intended to encompass minor manufacturing variations or design contours that do not depart from the overall planar nature of the surface. The specification notes that the term "substantially flat" should be understood to allow for local undulations and features, as long as it can form a stable fit '012 Patent, col. 41:40-49
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Practitioners may point to the patent drawings, such as the depiction of the support plate (104A) in FIG. 4A of the '012 Patent, which shows a geometrically planar surface, to argue that "substantially flat" should be construed narrowly to exclude surfaces with significant curves or angles '012 Patent, FIG. 4A

For both the '534 and '012 Patents

  • The Term: "removably disposed" ('534 Patent) / "removably installed" ('012 Patent)
  • Context and Importance: This limitation defines the nature of the connection between the storage component (sidewalls or basket) and the frame. The ease and method of removal will be a key point of dispute.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Practitioners may argue that "removably" should be given its plain and ordinary meaning, covering any design that allows for non-destructive detachment, including with the use of common tools. The specification's mention of a "threaded connection mechanism" or "threaded fastening mechanism" may support this, as threads typically imply the use of tools '012 Patent, col. 2:7-9 '012 Patent, col. 4:34-36
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Practitioners may argue that if any embodiment illustrates a tool-less or quick-release mechanism, the term should be limited to such configurations. The claims of the '012 patent, for instance, mention a "threaded connection mechanism," which could be argued to define the specific manner of removal intended by the inventors, potentially narrowing the scope to exclude other forms of attachment like snap-fits or latches '012 Patent, col. 2:7-9

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not include a formal count for indirect infringement. However, it lays a factual predicate for such a claim by alleging that the various defendants operate as a coordinated "stream of commerce," with some manufacturing and others distributing and selling the same accused product Compl. ¶27 The complaint's reference to a user manual for the WINDHORSE C2 Cargo may be used to support allegations of inducement Compl. ¶23
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants had knowledge of the Asserted Patents and continued their infringing activities after the patents issued and after the complaint was filed, which may support a claim for willful infringement Compl. ¶43 The prayer for relief explicitly requests a finding of willful infringement and an award of enhanced damages Compl. Prayer ¶E

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

  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: how will the court construe qualifying terms like "substantially flat" and "removably"? The outcome of the infringement analysis will heavily depend on the breadth of these definitions and whether the geometric and functional characteristics of the Accused Products fall within their scope.
  • A second key question will relate to joinder and liability: can the Plaintiff successfully prove that the numerous defendants constitute a single, "coordinated network" sufficient to justify their joinder in a single action under 35 U.S.C. § 299 and to potentially hold them jointly liable for infringement, or will the defendants succeed in arguing they are independent actors improperly joined?
  • A third central question will be evidentiary: what technical evidence will be presented to demonstrate that the Accused Products meet specific claim limitations, such as the "substantially horizontal contact" required by claim 7 of the '012 Patent, and how will the court weigh this evidence against the patent's intrinsic record?
Loading Amended Complaint