The complaint
The case is Shenzhen Chitado Technology Co., Ltd. v. Great Work International Development Co., Limited, No. 4:26-cv-01608 (E.D. Tex., Sherman Division). Chitado filed the complaint on October 29, 2026, and demands a jury trial. The docket assigns the case to Chief District Judge Amos L. Mazzant. The complaint describes Chitado as a Chinese limited liability company based in Shenzhen that designs, makes, and sells electric riding devices, including under its GYROOR brand, and describes Great Work as a Hong Kong company incorporated on March 3, 2026.
The complaint alleges that Great Work offers and sells the accused products through the Amazon storefront GREAT WORK US, the Walmart storefront Greatwork Official Store, and the website greatworkbike.com, and it alleges, on information and belief, that Great Work owns and operates all three sales channels. It alleges that a K7 bought through greatworkbike.com was delivered to Plano, Texas, on October 15, 2026, and that a K7 and a K7 Pro were ordered for Plano delivery through the Amazon and Walmart storefronts on October 29, 2026. It pleads personal jurisdiction based on those sales and, in the alternative, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(k)(2). It pleads venue under 28 U.S.C. 1391(c)(3), alleging on information and belief that Great Work does not reside in the United States.
The two patents
The complaint asserts U.S. Patent 12,649,534, titled Electric Riding Device, issued June 9, 2026, and U.S. Patent 12,595,012, also titled Electric Riding Device, issued April 7, 2026. Both issued from applications filed September 26, 2025, and the face of each patent lists Chitado as applicant and assignee. The complaint alleges Chitado owns all substantial rights in both patents. It asserts claims 6, 7, 9, and 15 of the '534 patent and claim 7 of the '012 patent, and attaches claim charts as Exhibits 4A, 4B, 5A, and 5B.
Claim 15 of the '534 patent, which the complaint calls representative, recites an electric riding device with a frame body defining a substantially flat support plate between its front and rear ends, front and rear wheels, a handlebar assembly, a seat, and a power device; a storage cavity whose longitudinal dimension is greater than its lateral and height dimensions, defined at least in part by left and right sidewalls that rise from the edges of the support plate, are removably disposed on the frame body, and leave the cavity with an open top; and left and right footrests installed longitudinally nearer the front ends of the support plate than the rear ends.
Claim 7 of the '012 patent recites an electric riding device with a frame body having a substantially flat base portion and front and rear raised portions that support the head tube and the seat, front and rear wheels, a handlebar assembly, a seat, a power device, a storage basket removably installed so that its contact surface rests on the upper surface of the base portion in substantially horizontal contact, and left and right footrests installed longitudinally nearer the front ends of the base portion than the rear ends.
The accused products
The complaint names the GREATWORK K7 and GREATWORK K7 Pro electric riding devices. It describes them as having a center storage basket between the wheels that is removable and secured to the frame with screws, and it alleges they incorporate the frame, removable storage basket, and footrest arrangements claimed in the asserted patents. It says the listings it identifies are representative and that its allegations also reach color or battery-capacity variants and replacement listings.
The counts and relief
Count I alleges direct infringement of claims 6, 7, 9, and 15 of the '534 patent under 35 U.S.C. 271(a), literally or under the doctrine of equivalents. Count II makes the same allegation for claim 7 of the '012 patent. The complaint alleges, on information and belief, that the accused sales have caused Chitado lost sales and price erosion. It asks for preliminary and permanent injunctions under 35 U.S.C. 283, an order requiring Great Work to remove or disable listings of enjoined products, damages under 35 U.S.C. 284 including lost profits to the extent proven and no less than a reasonable royalty, a finding of willfulness and enhanced damages to the extent proven, attorneys' fees under 35 U.S.C. 285, and costs.
The same patents in other Chitado suits
Chitado asserts U.S. Patents 12,649,534 and 12,595,012 in other suits, including No. 4:26-cv-01568 in the same district, filed October 23, 2026, and No. 1:26-cv-13032 in the Northern District of Illinois, filed October 22, 2026, according to those dockets. In this case Chitado filed a notice of related cases on October 30, 2026. Chitado has also asserted the two patents in No. 1:26-cv-09457 in the Northern District of Illinois, filed August 7, 2026, and No. 2:26-cv-06693 in the Eastern District of New York, filed October 18, 2026, for at least five suits on the patents since August.
What to watch next
The clerk issued a summons to Great Work on October 30, 2026. Watch for service on the Hong Kong defendant, any motion for a preliminary injunction, any order relating this case to No. 4:26-cv-01568, and Great Work's answer or a motion under Rule 12. The case can end at any time, including by settlement or voluntary dismissal.