The complaint
Shenzhen Chitado Technology Co., Ltd. v. Windhorse Technologies Inc., No. 1:26-cv-09457 (N.D. Ill., Eastern Division), was filed August 7, 2026, and demands a jury trial. The docket shows random assignment that day to District Judge LaShonda A. Hunt. The complaint names nine defendants: Windhorse Technologies Inc.; Dongguan Wind Horse New Energy Technology Limited d/b/a Windhorse Factory; Shenzhen Wind Horse New Energy Technology Limited d/b/a Windhorse Shop; Sprocomm Technologies Co., Ltd.; Sprocomm Technologies Co., Limited d/b/a E Bike Factory Direct, Ebike Factory Direct, and Windhorse Ebike Factory; EKU INC; Shenzhenshi Heyuguoji Gongyinglianguanli Co., Ltd. d/b/a Ridwind; Land Grabber Technology Co., Limited d/b/a GOSWIF; and Zhengzhou Zeying Wangluokeji Youxiangongsi d/b/a SEHOMY Store. It describes Windhorse Technologies Inc. as a California corporation based in Huntington Beach, California, and EKU INC as a New York corporation, and it describes the other defendants as companies organized in China or Hong Kong, for five of them on information and belief.
The complaint describes Chitado as a Chinese company based in Shenzhen that designs, makes, and sells electric riding devices, including under its GYROOR brand. It alleges a coordinated manufacturing, supply, importation, distribution, branding, and online-sales network: that Sprocomm Technologies Co., Ltd. owns the WINDHORSE marks and, through Shenzhen Wind Horse New Energy Technology Limited, owns Dongguan Wind Horse New Energy Technology Limited; that Windhorse Technologies Inc. has identified Sprocomm Technologies Co., Limited, a Hong Kong company, as its parent company in a filing in another federal court; and that the other storefront defendants sell WINDHORSE-branded products or C3 products whose listing data identify Dongguan Wind Horse as the manufacturer. It pleads joinder under 35 U.S.C. 299 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20, specific personal jurisdiction based on storefronts that offer shipment to Illinois, and venue under 28 U.S.C. 1391(c)(3) as to the defendants not resident in the United States.
The two patents
The complaint asserts U.S. Patent 12,649,534, titled Electric Riding Device, issued June 9, 2026 from Application No. 19/341,002, and U.S. Patent 12,595,012, also titled Electric Riding Device, issued April 7, 2026 from Application No. 19/340,910. It says both applications were filed September 26, 2025 and claim priority to International Application No. PCT/CN2025/106945, and it alleges Chitado is the assignee and owner of all substantial rights in both patents. It asserts claims 1 to 4 and 6 to 15 of the '534 patent and claims 1, 2, and 4 to 7 of the '012 patent.
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, front and rear wheels, a handlebar assembly, a seat, and a power device; a storage cavity longer than it is wide or tall, 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. The complaint says claim 1 adds dimensional ratios, an openwork basket bottom, mirror-symmetrical sidewalls, arcuate top corners, rotatable footrests, and perpendicular basket bars, and that the asserted dependent claims add threaded mounting, spaced mounting plates, bent basket portions conforming to the frame, and a mesh structure, among other things.
Claim 7 of the '012 patent, which the complaint also calls representative, recites an electric riding device whose frame body has a substantially flat base portion with raised front and rear portions supporting the head tube and the seat, 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 complaint describes claim 1 of the '012 patent as covering a base formed by spaced left and right frame members and a support plate, a storage assembly mounted by a threaded connection, pivotable footrests mounted near the front through fixed adapters, anti-slip strips, reinforcing ribs, and a power device under the support plate.
The accused products
The complaint accuses the WINDHORSE C2 Cargo, C3, C3 Max, and D1 models, together with what it calls materially identical C3 products sold under the RIDWIND and SEHOMY names. It alleges they are sold through windhorse.com and storefronts on Amazon.com, Walmart.com, TikTok Shop, and Temu. It alleges that Chitado bought C2 Cargo, C3, and C3 Max samples through Amazon and the WINDHORSE website for delivery to Downers Grove, Illinois, inspected them, and prepared model-specific claim charts, attached as Exhibits 3A to 3C for the '534 patent and 7A to 7C for the '012 patent, and that it placed further orders through other storefronts and the WINDHORSE website for Illinois delivery, including a WINDHORSE D1, which it says is marketed as a cargo e-scooter with a detachable middle basket.
The counts and relief
Count I alleges direct infringement of claims 1 to 4 and 6 to 15 of the '534 patent under 35 U.S.C. 271(a), and Count II alleges direct infringement of claims 1, 2, and 4 to 7 of the '012 patent, in each case literally or, in the alternative, under the doctrine of equivalents. The complaint alleges, on information and belief, that the defendants continued the accused sales after each patent issued. It asks for a judgment of infringement; preliminary and permanent injunctions under 35 U.S.C. 283 and Rule 65, including terms against transferring storefronts or opening new seller accounts to evade them; an order, to the extent Rule 65(d)(2) allows, requiring marketplaces, payment processors, and others in active concert with the defendants to disable listings and accounts; damages of no less than a reasonable royalty under 35 U.S.C. 284, with interest and costs; a finding of willfulness and enhanced damages to the extent proven; and attorneys' fees under 35 U.S.C. 285 to the extent the case is found exceptional.
The amended complaint and the docket
On August 13, 2026, the court ordered Chitado to explain why joinder and personal jurisdiction were proper or to file an amended complaint stating more than conclusory grounds for them. The first amended complaint, filed August 20, 2026, dropped Sprocomm Technologies Co., Ltd., EKU INC, and Land Grabber Technology Co., Limited; the amended complaint is not available. On August 25, 2026, the court found its concerns resolved. It summarized the amended complaint as alleging that Dongguan Wind Horse makes the accused product, that its corporate parent Shenzhen Wind Horse sells it on Amazon.com, that Windhorse Technologies Inc. and Sprocomm Technologies Co., Limited distribute it in the United States under the WINDHORSE marks, and that the two remaining storefront defendants sell it under private labels. Chitado later sued EKU Inc. separately in No. 2:26-cv-06693 (E.D.N.Y.).
Windhorse Technologies Inc. was served September 3, 2026. On September 22, 2026, the court extended its deadline to respond to the complaint to October 26, 2026 and reset the deadline to file the form scheduling order for patent cases to November 9, 2026. The docket then lists a motion to dismiss and to quash on October 27, 2026, an order on that motion on October 28, an entry titled Transfer Case on October 30, and a further order on the motion to dismiss and the motion to quash on November 2, 2026. Those documents are not available.
What to watch next
Watch for what the October 28 and November 2 orders and the October 30 transfer entry mean for which defendants remain and where the case proceeds, for the form scheduling order due November 9, 2026, and for responses from the other defendants. The case can end at any time, including by settlement or voluntary dismissal.