Jump to content

Segway/Ninebot suing Inventist (Solowheel) for patent infringement


RichieV

Recommended Posts

Plaintiff/Segway/Ninebot claim that Invenist infringed against ‘230 patent, ‘763 patent, ‘330 patent, ‘607 patent, and ‘872 patent  - so they shall pay an indemnification and stop selling products infringing these patents.

The ‘230 patent discloses and claims a personal transporter with a balance monitor and a method for using such a transporter
The ‘763 patent discloses and claims a personal transporter capable of modulating its motion to alert an operator to a specified condition.
‘330 patent discloses and claims an alarm system for a personal transporter that alerts an operator to a specified condition by modulating the motion of the transporter
The ‘607 patent discloses and claims improved controllers for a transporter.
The ‘872 patent discloses and claims an alarm system and a method for alerting the operator of a personal transporter to a specified condition by shaking the transporter.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a company has valid patents, and they do not actively enforce them, they lose all rights. A company owes it to their shareholders to protect the company assets, and that includes patents.

Now, I'm not defending patent trolls and over-aggressive silly patent enforcement. But a company that like Segway has created something truly unique for the first time, has rights to ask for royalties on their patents. Every piece of technology you use and every smartphone rely on the manufacturer to pay the required royalties to the patent owners (or cross license patents). As users, we might feel differently, but put yourself in the shoes of a small inventor that has created something truly unique, only to see it copied by a bigger company: would you defend your patents and ask fora royalty or try and compete with someone that can undercut you on price and distribution?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As users, we might feel differently, but put yourself in the shoes of a small inventor that has created something truly unique, only to see it copied by a bigger company: would you defend your patents and ask fora royalty or try and compete with someone that can undercut you on price and distribution?

Only this time its a multimillion $ conglomerate that sues the small guy, that has had a Gentlemans agreement with Segway. Ninebot bought Segway solely to avoid a  patent dispute and now they sue themselves... <_<

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Not sure why Multiquote is making such a mess... there doesn't seem to be any way to start a new message from scratch once you start multiquote, and anything I try adds more nested quotes (and in the end it lost everything I typed, I give up :))

 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And asking $2000 for something that chinese will sell for $280, that's greed.

 

I know Solowheel's are high quality machines with the safest battery chemistry out there. But yeah .. $2000 is... excessive.  If it were $1200 or around there for the Extreme (sorry XTreme eyeroll) then that would be a much more reasonable asking price IMO.

They look great (my favorite wheel design) and I love their philosophy of using LiMn batteries. But I just can't justify spending more than double the price of a KS 14C 800 on something with a third of the battery capacity, a third the range.. and a (much) lower top speed.

I feel they would sell a TON of lot more units if they got the capacity and speed UP and the price DOWN. It must be the "Bay Area mentality" where everything is super expensive..(Don't get me wrong, I love it there). But it makes me wonder how much it would sell for if they were based somewhere else in the US.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know Solowheel's are high quality machines with the safest battery chemistry out there.

Even the new S300 "classics" now come with "normal" Li-ion -cells (Sony VT3, apparently NMC-chemistry), Solowheel has stopped using LiFePo4, and that even isn't the safest (although safer than most). Regardless what has been claimed here in the forum, the far safest option is Lithium-Titanate (LTO), but it has even lower nominal voltage than LiFePo4, so it would need a huge number of cells for the wheels (or much lower voltage motor). The safety actually seems to come from the low voltage (3.6-3.8V nominal for most,  3.2-3.3V for LiFePo4, 2.4V for Li-titanate) as the thermal runaway temperature seems to become lower the higher the voltage.

But yeah .. $2000 is... excessive.  If it were $1200 or around there for the Extreme (sorry XTreme eyeroll) then that would be a much more reasonable asking price IMO.

They look great (my favorite wheel design) and I love their philosophy of using LiMn batteries.

Exactly, LiMn = NMC. Used by at least Firewheels (Sony V3), probably Ninebot (don't remember the cell chemistry anymore, I found it somewhere and posted it somewhere here ;)) and probably many, if not almost all others. Not safer than others, but packs a punch. NCA (LiNiCoAl or LiAl, used by Tesla, for example) is supposedly more resistant to shocks and has higher specific energy density (capacity), which on the other hand should make it more volatile, and it's also more expensive...

Totally unrelated to Segway suing Inventist, but I have a bad habit of nit-picking about factual errors... :rolleyes:

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any speculations on what will happen should either side win?  If Ninebot wins, will they go full bore with U.S. distribution?  Perhaps Ninebot boutiques in shopping malls and Ninebots on big box store shelves?  Will they allow other ewheel makers to start selling their products here, perhaps under some sort of licensing agreement?  How about if Inventist wins?  What happens then?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even the new S300 "classics" now come with "normal" Li-ion -cells (Sony VT3, apparently NMC-chemistry), Solowheel has stopped using LiFePo4, and that even isn't the safest (although safer than most). Regardless what has been claimed here in the forum, the far safest option is Lithium-Titanate (LTO), but it has even lower nominal voltage than LiFePo4, so it would need a huge number of cells for the wheels (or much lower voltage motor). The safety actually seems to come from the low voltage (3.6-3.8V nominal for most,  3.2-3.3V for LiFePo4, 2.4V for Li-titanate) as the thermal runaway temperature seems to become lower the higher the voltage.

Exactly, LiMn = NMC. Used by at least Firewheels (Sony V3), probably Ninebot (don't remember the cell chemistry anymore, I found it somewhere and posted it somewhere here ;)) and probably many, if not almost all others. Not safer than others, but packs a punch. NCA (LiNiCoAl or LiAl, used by Tesla, for example) is supposedly more resistant to shocks and has higher specific energy density (capacity), which on the other hand should make it more volatile, and it's also more expensive...

wow! I love battery chemistry talk  :D Good to know, I didn't know they ditched the LiFePo4 packs in the older units. 

I actually contacted 1rad werkstatt from your other post here to see if a 828Wh pack on the KS 800 680Wh was possible. And it was!  Just need to see if it will be worth the upgrade in terms of range... (using LG MJ1 batteries)

 

Totally unrelated to Segway suing Inventist, but I have a bad habit of nit-picking about factual errors... :rolleyes:

 

 

haha I prefer not to be spouting out false information so I actually appreciate being corrected when I'm wrong B)  Although since I appreciate it, I tend to do the same thing and correct others.. And I've found they don't tend to appreciate it like I do LOL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

I remember when Solowheel was suing IPS - didn't that happen?  Or were they just giving them a hard time?  Sometimes one should be careful casting the first stone - because it will certainly come back to bite you.  On a tangent, you also should be careful what you ask for (because you might just get it) as in asking to settle things in court and later you might just be brought to court in the same manner - but I think this was probably unavoidable.  Wait, that's not a tangent, that's a parallel.

Asking for something - the user wants more speed and power - folks start experimenting removing speed restrictions and safeguards, then manufacturers start selling models to cater to this desire in the market...  Users start "faceplanting" and certain folks :P start complaining which lead to the pendulum swinging back the other way and safeguards are being reinstated, bans are beginning to be put in certain countries.- who's to say where is the good and the bad?  Maybe be careful what you ask for - to force all manufacturers to adhere to some guidelines could mean throttling innovation.  What is the wheel if not an innovation?  Before the EU who would have thought the self-balancing one wheel could be ride'able?  (Whisper this point - makes the original two wheel concept a clunky inelegant dinosaur?)

Oh back to Solowheel - they have "for those in the know" options to remove the limiter.  I think you have to adhere to the "mum's the word" kind of agreements and maybe you have to impress the higher ups to be let in on the secret...

Back on topic - I think they should do these necessary suing in public but privately be hand-shaking under the table and not deprive us users/riders/buyers from getting the selection of wheels that we want.  For example although Solowheel was suing smaller makers it seems to me maybe they were also handshaking deals elsewhere because there were at least two branded wheels that looked "too much" like Solowheel, one was Mobbo I think which did not look like an "IPS copy" but exactly like a Solowheel.  Fishy or not fishy?  Perhaps Solowheel could not break their $1.5K price precedent but maybe they handshook different deals for other markets.

I think we're still lucky though that at this point we can still get a hold of one of these and ride (though some places are less lucky).  Now I shall end with saying "Yield to Pedestrians" don't get the wheel banned.  (But I also forgot to work in the concept of "not an ominous shadow" but a shadow that has been there all along.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Just stumbled on the article about the suit on the inter-webs and then found this thread.  Very interesting lawsuit.  Inventist's public response is also interesting 

http://www.inventist.com/blog/129334714360/ninebot-retaliates-to-infringement-suit

Excerpt: 

Let’s cut to the chase. Segway is indeed suing us. Why? A few months ago we filed suit in China against Ninebot, a Chinese company, for patent infringement with their “Ninebot One”, an electric unicycle similar to our popular product the Solowheel. Then, on June 1st 2015 Inventist successfully detained a large Ninebot One shipment heading out of China. (Chinese customs has the authority to detain any goods that are infringing on a granted patent.) These events signify a giant step forward for US companies who are dealing with counterfeit goods being manufactured in China and then shipped out and sold all over the world.

Depending on the timing, the Inventist lawsuit could have been filed against Ninebot before they purchased Segway.  It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

Also something I didn't know is that Inventist founder Shane Chen has the patent for hoverboards filed as Two-Wheel, Self-Balancing Vehicle With Independently Movable Foot Placement Sections.  I wonder if he then licensed his idea to Chinese manufactures and raked in all the money from it this past year?  .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...