From the CES buzz to the courtroom: AI glasses face an infringement lawsuit, and a $1.2 million crowdfunding campaign falls through

Just when it seemed the finish line had been crossed, the project was pulled back.

On August 27, Kickstarter showed that the crowdfunding campaign for "MemoMind One"—the debut product from MemoMind, an AI eyewear brand under XGIMI Technology—had been halted. Just days earlier, the project had been surging ahead, having raised over $1.2 million with the support of more than 2,500 backers.

A patent lawsuit was put on hold at the most critical moment.

Just as the crowdfunding campaign was on the verge of success, it was cut short by a lawsuit.

The timeline is very tight.

MemoMind One launched its crowdfunding campaign on Kickstarter on June 28, with an original end date of August 27. By August 20, the project had raised over $1.2 million (approximately RMB 8.06 million) from more than 2,500 backers. However, just as the campaign was nearing its conclusion, a patent lawsuit suddenly arose, causing the project to be suspended before the scheduled deadline.

Under Kickstarter’s current rules, once a project is suspended, fundraising stops immediately and all pledges are cancelled; backers are not charged, and the suspension cannot be reversed. In other words, the crowdfunding campaign has effectively collapsed.

Two design patents and all three frame styles are the subject of the lawsuit.

The plaintiff is Shenzhen Yiwen Technology, the company behind the smart eyewear firm Even Realities.

On August 24, a lawsuit was unsealed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. Yiwen Technology filed suit against XGIMI Technology, XGIMI Innovation Technology (Hong Kong), Shenzhen Qinglai Innovative Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd. (the entity responsible for the MemoMind business), and Kickstarter. The company alleges direct infringement, induced infringement, contributory infringement, and willful infringement, and has sought a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction—primarily to prevent Kickstarter from releasing the crowdfunding proceeds to MemoMind.

The lawsuit is based on two U.S. design patents—USD1,140,996 and USD1,140,997—both titled "Smart glasses." The '996 patent covers a design with rounded frames, while the '997 patent covers a design with more squared-off frames; both patents were granted on August 11, 2026.

All three frame styles of MemoMind One have been cited as infringing products. The round-framed "Archive" model is alleged to infringe upon design patent D'996, while the "Gotham" and "Nomad" models are alleged to infringe upon D'997. The comparison materials submitted by Yiwen Technology focus on visual details, including the round lenses, hinge areas, and overall silhouettes, as well as the designs of the rectangular frames and temples.

The complaint further alleges that MemoMind imitated Even’s brand identity—including its marketing photography and brand style—and cites consumer comments regarding the similarity between the two products, as well as materials in which MemoMind explicitly compares its own product to Even’s, to support claims of intentional copying and willful infringement.

Only 13 days elapsed between the formal granting of the patent and the filing of the lawsuit.

Long-standing grievances have escalated from the CES stage all the way to the courtroom.

This is not the first time such a controversy has arisen.

Following the unveiling of MemoMind One at CES 2026, Even Realities posted side-by-side comparisons of the two companies' products and promotional materials on social media, with the caption: "I didn't expect it to look so... familiar." Even founder Wang Xiaoyi subsequently reposted the content, stating that such actions merely "confirmed the stereotype of the copycat" and bluntly describing the situation as regrettable.

At the time, MemoMind responded by stating that the two companies did not share manufacturing systems; MemoMind possessed its own designs, production capabilities, and optical waveguide solutions. It also argued that, given the physical constraints—such as limited internal space—inherent to smart glasses, it was not surprising for different products to share similar appearances.

However, after conducting hands-on tests, several overseas media outlets maintained that the overall designs of the two products were strikingly similar. Tom's Guide noted that the MemoMind One closely resembled the Even G2 in everything from functionality to UI elements, with both featuring binocular green displays and similar user interface designs. The reviews also pointed out that the MemoMind One was not a carbon copy; it incorporated built-in speakers and differed slightly in terms of buttons, temple structure, internal components, and certain interaction methods.

In June of this year, MemoMind proactively published a comparison between its product and the Even G2 on its official website. The company argued that the two products targeted different market segments: the Even G2 was lighter and closer in style to traditional eyewear, whereas the MemoMind One offered a richer user experience by supporting features such as call handling and AI-powered memory functions.

Why Is Kickstarter Also Being Sued?

Even the crowdfunding platform Kickstarter has been drawn into this lawsuit.

In the complaint, Even alleges that Kickstarter played an active role in promoting and curating the project—including designating MemoMind One as a "Project We Love" and facilitating the product's promotion, marketing, and sales. Based on these actions, Even claims that Kickstarter induced and aided the infringement, and has sought a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction to halt the settlement of the crowdfunding funds.

However, the suspension of the crowdfunding campaign does not mean the court has determined that MemoMind One constitutes infringement.

Why is it so difficult to judge the design of smart glasses?

In the United States, design patent infringement cases have long applied the "ordinary observer" test; this standard assesses whether two designs are substantially similar in their overall visual appearance from the perspective of an ordinary purchaser familiar with the relevant prior art. This is particularly significant in product categories already crowded with similar designs, where even subtle differences between the patented design and the accused product can become crucial.

The situation is even more complex for smart glasses. Research indicates that the need for all-day smart glasses to simultaneously meet requirements regarding size, weight, fashionability, and social acceptance inherently limits the design solutions available to manufacturers. Furthermore, as supply chains mature—a trend highlighted by IDC in its summary of CES 2026—manufacturers can easily access reference designs; this allows them to launch competitive products with only minor modifications to existing solutions. Given these constraints and the availability of mature designs, the convergence of product aesthetics is hardly surprising.

Patent battles in this sector have, in fact, been underway for some time. Since September 2025, XREAL—a leading Chinese AR glasses company—has filed lawsuits in Germany, the U.S., and other jurisdictions against entities associated with AR glasses manufacturer VITURE, alleging infringement of patents related to its AR devices and optical systems. The Regional Court of Munich I issued a preliminary injunction against the VITURE Pro XR; subsequently, in February of this year, a fine of €75,000 (approximately RMB 587,000) was imposed on a VITURE affiliate for failing to fully comply with the injunction.

However, the boundaries of protection for eyewear aesthetics are far more complex than those for patents covering technologies with relatively clear parameters, such as optical systems. Factors such as frame shape, temple design, and overall proportions are inherently constrained by wearer comfort and traditional eyewear forms, making it not uncommon for different products to look alike. It remains to be seen whether the court will ultimately uphold Even's claims regarding its design patents.

Ultimately, the reality facing MemoMind is stark: crowdfunding has ceased, the funds will not materialize, and the backers have dispersed.

While the outcome of the lawsuit remains undecided, the controversy surrounding the convergence of smart glasses designs has escalated from a dispute over a single product into a critical challenge facing the entire category. As supply chain capabilities make it possible for "anyone to manufacture" such devices—and with patent boundaries remaining ambiguous—the industry is in need of a clearer answer.

Source: MicroDisplay