Segway Inc v. Shenzhen Chenduoxing Electronic Technology Ltd China

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiffs: Segway Inc. (Delaware); DEKA Products Limited Partnership (New Hampshire); Ninebot (Tianjin) Technology Co., Ltd. (China)
  • Defendant: Shenzhen Chenduoxing Electronic Technology Ltd., a/k/a C-Star (China)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP
• Case Identification: 1:16-cv-00535, D. Del., 06/28/2016
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiffs allege venue is proper in the District of Delaware because Defendant conducts business in the United States and Delaware, places allegedly infringing products into the stream of commerce through distribution channels with the intent that they will be purchased by consumers in the District, and advertises said products on a nationally accessible interactive website.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiffs allege that Defendant’s self-balancing personal transporters infringe patents related to dynamic stabilization, safety monitoring systems, and user-position-based control.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue is in the field of dynamically stabilized personal mobility devices, a market segment that Plaintiff Segway asserts it created in 2001.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint states that Plaintiff DEKA is the owner of the patents-in-suit and that Plaintiff Segway is the exclusive licensee in the relevant consumer transporter field. Plaintiff Ninebot is identified as an affiliate of Segway and a sub-licensee.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
1999-06-04	Earliest Priority Date for '230, '607, and '984 Patents
2001-01-01	Approximate date Segway introduced its first self-balancing personal vehicle (year only provided)
2001-10-16	U.S. Patent No. 6,302,230 Issues
2006-08-01	Segway begins sales of second-generation vehicles (i2, x2) (month/year only provided)
2007-10-02	U.S. Patent No. 7,275,607 Issues
2011-10-01	Date from which Plaintiffs allege Defendant had knowledge of the patents (month/year only provided)
2014-03-01	Segway ceases sales of i2 and x2 models (month/year only provided)
2015-11-17	U.S. Patent No. 9,188,984 Issues
2016-06-28	Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 6,302,230 - "Personal Mobility Vehicles and Methods," Issued Oct. 16, 2001

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes conventional vehicles that rely on static stability, such as automobiles, which are stable under foreseen conditions ('230 Patent, col. 1:12-18). The implicit problem is the creation of a compact, maneuverable personal transporter that is dynamically balanced, meaning it is inherently unstable and requires an active control system to remain upright.
• The Patented Solution: The invention is an automatically balancing vehicle that includes a "balancing margin monitor" and an associated alarm ('230 Patent, Abstract). This system determines the difference between the vehicle's maximum performance capability (e.g., maximum power output or velocity) and its current operational state ('230 Patent, col. 2:33-44). If this "balancing margin" or "headroom" becomes too small, indicating the vehicle may not be able to accelerate sufficiently to maintain balance, the alarm warns the user ('230 Patent, col. 2:40-44).
• Technical Importance: This safety feature directly addresses a fundamental vulnerability of dynamically balanced systems: the risk of losing balance if the user's command for acceleration exceeds the physical limits of the motorized drive system.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 5 (Compl. ¶16).
• Claim 1 (Apparatus): A vehicle for carrying a user, comprising:
  • a platform to support the user.
  • a ground-contacting module.
  • a motorized drive arrangement for automatic balancing.
  • a balancing margin monitor to generate a signal characterizing the balancing margin, which is the difference between a maximum operating velocity and the present velocity.
  • an alarm, coupled to the monitor, to warn when the margin falls below a specified limit.
• Claim 5 (Method): A method for using a vehicle, comprising:
  • supporting a user on a platform.
  • operating a motorized drive for automatic balancing, the vehicle having a present velocity and a maximum operating velocity.
  • monitoring the balancing margin.
  • generating a signal characterizing the margin.
  • generating an alarm to warn when the margin falls below a specified limit.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. 7,275,607 - "Control of a Personal Transporter Based on User Position," Issued Oct. 2, 2007

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent notes that in a balancing transporter, any torque applied to the wheels for steering or propulsion affects the vehicle's stability ('607 Patent, col. 1:44-47). The technical challenge is to create a control system that intuitively and naturally integrates human steering commands with the vehicle's automated balancing functions ('607 Patent, col. 1:47-51).
• The Patented Solution: The patent discloses a controller that uses the rider's "detected body orientation" as the primary input for desired motion ('607 Patent, col. 2:1-9). The system can use various sensors—such as pressure sensors, force sensors, or ultrasonic position sensors—to detect how the user is leaning or shifting their weight ('607 Patent, Abstract). A processor then uses this body orientation data, in conjunction with pitch data from a pitch estimator, to generate command signals for the motors, thereby directing the vehicle while simultaneously maintaining balance ('607 Patent, col. 2:5-14).
• Technical Importance: This technology enables a more instinctual method of control for dynamically balanced vehicles, moving beyond conventional joysticks or hand controls to a system where the vehicle responds directly to the rider's body movements.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶24).
• Claim 1 (Controller): A controller for a transporter, comprising:
  • an input adapted to receive a user's specification of desired yaw, yaw rate, and direction of motion based on a detected body orientation of the user.
  • a pitch state estimator for sensing the transporter's pitch.
  • a processor that generates a command signal based on both the user-specified input and the pitch state signal, in a manner that maintains balance while achieving the specified motion.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. 9,188,984 - "Control of a Personal Transporter Based on User Position," Issued Nov. 17, 2015

• Technology Synopsis: The ’984 Patent is directed to controllers for personal transporters that enhance stability during turns. It discloses an apparatus that prompts a rider to adopt a "propitious instantaneous body orientation" to counteract lateral acceleration, for example, by using a handlebar that actively pivots or moves in response to the vehicle turning, thereby guiding the user into a stable lean ('984 Patent, Abstract).
• Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts independent claims 1, 8, and 15 (Compl. ¶32).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the C-Star Product's control system, which responds to user input to direct the transporter, infringes the '984 Patent (Compl. ¶32).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused products are personal transporters sold by Defendant C-Star under labels such as "Smart Balance Wheel" or "Self-Balancing Electric Scooter" (the "C-Star Product") (Compl. ¶16).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that the C-Star Product is a self-balancing personal transporter (Compl. ¶16). The infringement allegations imply that the device operates using a dynamic stabilization system controlled by a user's lean and body position (Compl. ¶¶ 17, 25, 33). The complaint references a "User's Manual for the C-Star Product" (attached as Exhibit F but not provided in the source documents) as evidence of the product's functionality (Compl. ¶17). Plaintiffs characterize these products as copies of their own "pioneering and inventive" personal transporters that established the market (Compl. ¶¶ 18, 26, 34).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

The complaint alleges infringement but supports its theories by referencing external claim chart exhibits (Exhibits G, H, and I) that were not included with the complaint filing itself. The narrative infringement theories are summarized below.

• '230 Patent Infringement Allegations: The complaint asserts that the C-Star Product directly infringes at least claims 1 and 5 by making, using, or selling personal transporters that embody the patented invention (Compl. ¶16). The complaint states that, according to the C-Star Product's user manual, the product "meets all the elements of claim 1 and 5," with the element-by-element demonstration contained in the attached Exhibit G claim charts (Compl. ¶17). This theory requires the C-Star Product to possess a "balancing margin monitor" and an "alarm" that warns the user when the difference between maximum and present velocity falls below a limit.
• '607 Patent Infringement Allegations: The complaint alleges that the C-Star Product directly infringes at least claim 1 (Compl. ¶24). The infringement theory is that the accused product's control system meets all elements of the claim, implying it receives input based on the user's detected "body orientation" and uses that input along with pitch data to control the vehicle while maintaining balance. This assertion is supported by reference to the C-Star Product's user manual and the claim chart in Exhibit H (Compl. ¶25).
• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Technical Questions ('230 Patent): A primary question will be evidentiary: what proof can Plaintiffs offer that the C-Star Product incorporates a "balancing margin monitor" and "alarm" as defined in the claims? The complaint provides no specific facts on how the accused product allegedly performs this function, such as by monitoring battery voltage drop or motor speed, raising the question of whether its safety features perform the specific function required by the claims or a more generic one (e.g., a simple low-battery warning).
  • Scope Questions ('607 Patent): The infringement analysis may focus on the scope of the term "detected body orientation." A key question will be whether the accused product's mechanism for sensing user lean (likely via pressure-sensitive pads and gyroscopes) falls within the definition of "body orientation" as taught in the patent, which includes a range of modalities from foot-force sensing to ultrasonic tracking ('607 Patent, Abstract).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• Term ('230 Patent, Claim 1): "balancing margin monitor"

  • Context and Importance: This term is central to the invention of the '230 Patent. The definition will be critical for infringement, as it distinguishes the patented safety feature from other types of warnings. Practitioners may focus on this term because its specificity could be a key point of dispute.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification also describes the concept in terms of power, stating the monitor characterizes a "balancing margin determined by the difference between the maximum power output and the present power output of the drive arrangement" ('230 Patent, col. 2:33-38). This could support an argument that the term covers monitors that track available power, not just velocity.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Claim 1 explicitly defines the "balancing margin" as being "determined by the difference between the maximum operating velocity and the present velocity of the vehicle" ('230 Patent, col. 18:50-54). This language may support a narrower construction limited to velocity-based calculations.

• Term ('607 Patent, Claim 1): "a detected body orientation of the user"

  • Context and Importance: This term defines the input to the claimed controller and is the core of the '607 Patent's contribution. Its construction will determine what types of user sensing mechanisms are covered by the claim.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The abstract and specification list a wide array of methods for detecting user input, including "ultrasonic body position sensing; foot force sensing; handlebar lean; active handlebar; mechanical sensing of body position; and linear slide directional input" ('607 Patent, Abstract). This suggests the patentee intended the term to be interpreted broadly to cover various ways a user's physical stance can be translated into a control input.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party might argue that the term, read in light of the embodiments, requires more than a simple tilt measurement of the entire machine. For example, it could be argued to require a system that specifically senses the user's body position relative to the vehicle's platform, such as through discrete force sensors or position tracking.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: For all three patents-in-suit, the complaint alleges induced infringement based on C-Star providing user manuals, guides, and demonstrations that allegedly instruct customers and end-users on how to operate the accused products in a directly infringing manner (Compl. ¶¶ 19, 27, 35). The complaint also alleges contributory infringement, stating the accused products and their components are specially made for an infringing use and are not staple articles of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use (Compl. ¶¶ 20, 28, 36).
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged for all asserted patents. The complaint claims C-Star had knowledge of the patents, or was willfully blind to their existence, since at least October 2011 (Compl. ¶¶ 18, 26, 34). This allegation is based on Plaintiffs' own patent marking program for their Segway products, which includes a label directing the public to a website listing the patents covering the products, including those in suit (Compl. ¶¶ 18, 26, 34). The complaint also asserts actual knowledge as of the date the complaint was filed (Compl. ¶¶ 18, 26, 34).

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

• A core issue for the '230 patent will be one of technical evidence: can Plaintiffs demonstrate that the accused "hoverboard" contains the specific "balancing margin monitor" claimed in the patent? The case may turn on whether the accused product's safety features, whatever they may be, perform the claimed function of calculating and monitoring the difference between maximum and present velocity, or if they constitute a technically distinct, non-infringing alternative.
• A central question for the '607 and '984 patents will be one of definitional scope: can the term "detected body orientation," which the patents describe using various complex sensing modalities, be construed to read on the relatively simple system of gyroscopes and foot-activated pressure pads commonly used in self-balancing scooters? The court's interpretation of this key phrase will likely determine whether the accused products fall within the scope of the claims.
• A third key question will be one of knowledge and intent for the willfulness and indirect infringement claims. The court will have to assess whether constructive notice via a competitor's patent-marking website is sufficient to establish the requisite pre-suit knowledge for willful infringement, a question that has been the subject of significant debate in patent law.