Segway Inc v. Phunkeeduck Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Segway Inc. (Delaware), DEKA Products Limited Partnership (New Hampshire), and Ninebot (Tianjin) Technology Co., Ltd. (People's Republic of China)
  • Defendant: PhunkeeDuck, Inc. (New York)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP
• Case Identification: 1:16-cv-00539, D. Del., 06/28/2016
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper as Defendant is organized under the laws of Delaware and conducts business in the district, including through a nationally accessible interactive website from which consumers in Delaware can purchase the accused products.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiffs allege that Defendant’s self-balancing personal transporters infringe patents related to dynamic stabilization technology, user control via body orientation, and associated safety features.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns dynamically stabilized, or "self-balancing," personal mobility devices, a market category Plaintiffs allege they created with the introduction of the Segway® Personal Transporter.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not allege any prior litigation, licensing history, or post-grant proceedings involving the patents-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
1999-06-04	Earliest Priority Date for '230, '607, and '984 Patents
2001-10-16	Issue Date: U.S. Patent No. 6,302,230
2001	Segway introduces first-generation personal transporter
2006-08	Segway introduces second-generation personal transporters with LeanSteer™ technology
2007-10-02	Issue Date: U.S. Patent No. 7,275,607
2011-10	Segway products allegedly first marked with patent information
2014-03	Segway ceases sales of i2 and x2 models
2015-11-17	Issue Date: U.S. Patent No. 9,188,984
2016-06-28	Complaint Filing Date

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 dynamically balanced vehicles that, unlike statically stable vehicles, require continuous power from a motorized drive to remain upright (’230 Patent, col. 7:1-5; col. 8:59-65). A key challenge is managing the vehicle’s operational limits to ensure user safety.
• The Patented Solution: The invention provides a safety system featuring a "balancing margin monitor" (’230 Patent, col. 2:39-44). This monitor calculates the difference between the vehicle's maximum achievable velocity and its current velocity. If this "balancing margin" or "headroom" becomes too small—meaning the user is approaching the vehicle's performance limit and risks a fall—the system triggers an alarm to warn the user (’230 Patent, Abstract; col. 18:45-55).
• Technical Importance: This technology provides a critical safety feedback mechanism for dynamically stabilized vehicles, designed to prevent users from demanding acceleration or speed that the system cannot physically provide while maintaining balance.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 5 (Compl. ¶16).
• Independent Claim 1 recites a vehicle comprising:
  • a platform for a user.
  • a ground-contacting module.
  • a motorized drive arrangement for automatically balanced operation.
  • a balancing margin monitor for determining the difference between the maximum operating velocity and the present velocity.
  • an alarm, coupled to the monitor, to warn when the balancing margin falls below a specified limit.
• Independent Claim 5 recites a method of using a vehicle comprising the steps of:
  • supporting a user on a platform.
  • operating a motorized drive for automatically balanced operation.
  • monitoring the balancing margin.
  • generating a signal characterizing the margin.
  • generating an alarm to warn when the margin falls below a specified limit.

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: In a balancing transporter, any torque applied to the wheels for steering inherently affects the vehicle's fore-aft stability (’607 Patent, col. 1:40-47). This coupling requires a control system that can interpret a user's directional commands in an intuitive way without compromising balance.
• The Patented Solution: The patent discloses a controller that uses the rider's "detected body orientation" as the primary input for steering (’607 Patent, Abstract). The system can use various sensors—such as force sensors in the footplate, ultrasonic sensors to detect body position, or sensors in a leaning handlebar—to translate a user's lean or shift in posture into a desired yaw (turning) command, which is then executed by the balancing control system (’607 Patent, col. 2:1-9; col. 6:4-16).
• Technical Importance: This invention formalizes the "lean-to-steer" control paradigm for personal transporters, aiming to create a natural and intuitive integration between human control and the vehicle's dynamic stabilization system.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶24).
• Independent Claim 1 recites a controller for a transporter comprising:
  • an input adapted to receive specification by a user of a desired yaw and yaw rate 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 yaw input and the pitch signal to maintain balance while achieving the specified direction.

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

• Technology Synopsis: This patent discloses a controller for a personal transporter that provides an active speed-limiting safety feature. The system monitors the vehicle's speed and, if it exceeds a predetermined threshold, the controller alters the control signal to actively pitch the transporter backward, thereby using the balancing mechanism itself to safely decelerate the vehicle and prevent a loss of control (’984 Patent, col. 18:40-50).
• Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts independent claims 1, 8, and 15 (Compl. ¶32).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the PhunkeeDuck Product’s control system incorporates a speed-limiting function that pitches the device back to slow the user down, thereby infringing the '984 Patent (Compl. ¶33).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused products are electric, self-balancing personal transporters sold under the "PhunkeeDuck" brand (Compl. ¶16).

Functionality and Market Context

The PhunkeeDuck Product is a two-wheeled, self-balancing vehicle operated by a standing user who controls its movement and direction by shifting their weight and body position (Compl. ¶¶ 17, 25, 33). The complaint alleges these products are sold nationwide through an interactive website (Compl. ¶7).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide narrative infringement theories or claim charts in its body, instead referencing external Exhibits G, H, and I, which were not available for this analysis (Compl. ¶¶ 17, 25, 33). The infringement theories must therefore be inferred from the asserted claims and the general nature of the accused product.

• '230 Patent Infringement Allegations: The complaint's core theory appears to be that the PhunkeeDuck Product contains a safety system that functions as the claimed "balancing margin monitor" and "alarm" (Compl. ¶17). This implies an allegation that the accused product monitors its operational limits (e.g., available battery power or maximum motor speed) relative to its current state and warns the user when those limits are approached.

• '607 Patent Infringement Allegations: The infringement theory rests on the allegation that the PhunkeeDuck Product's "lean-to-steer" mechanism is controlled by a system that reads the user's "detected body orientation" to generate steering commands, while simultaneously using pitch information to maintain balance, as recited in the asserted claims (Compl. ¶25).

• Identified Points of Contention:

  • Scope Questions: A central question for the '230 Patent is whether the term "balancing margin monitor," defined as monitoring the difference between maximum and present velocity, reads on the accused product’s safety system. The dispute may turn on whether the accused product performs this specific calculation or a more generic function, such as a simple low-battery warning. For the '607 Patent, a question may be whether foot-pressure sensors, as are common in such devices, meet the claim limitation of detecting "body orientation."
  • Technical Questions: A key factual question will be what the source code and hardware of the PhunkeeDuck Product actually do. Does its safety system calculate a "margin" as specifically required by claim 1 of the ’230 Patent, or does it merely trigger a warning at a single, fixed threshold? Does its control system use a "pitch state estimator" in the manner claimed by the ’607 Patent?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

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

  • Context and Importance: This term is the central inventive concept of the '230 Patent. Infringement will depend on whether the accused product’s safety features fall within the scope of this term's definition.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discusses the concept in terms of both a "balancing margin" and a "velocity margin," and also describes monitoring the difference between battery and motor voltages as a proxy for this margin, suggesting the concept is not limited to a single method of calculation (’230 Patent, col. 2:31-38; col. 15:28-36).
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Claim 1 itself explicitly defines the margin as being "determined by the difference between the maximum operating velocity and the present velocity of the vehicle." A defendant may argue this language limits the claim to systems that specifically perform a velocity-based subtraction, excluding systems that monitor power or other metrics.

• Term: "detected body orientation" (from '607 Patent, Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This term defines the user input that drives the claimed control system. Whether the accused product's input mechanism meets this definition is critical to the infringement analysis.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent’s abstract and detailed description provide a broad, non-exclusive list of methods for detecting body orientation, 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; col. 2:59-64). This suggests the term is intended to be a broad descriptor for any system that translates the user's posture into a control input.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant could argue that the term requires sensing the orientation of the user’s body as a whole (e.g., the torso), and that systems relying solely on pressure sensors under the feet are detecting weight distribution, a distinct physical phenomenon not necessarily equivalent to "body orientation."

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement for all three patents. Inducement is based on allegations that PhunkeeDuck provides user manuals, guides, and videos that instruct customers on how to use the products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶¶ 19, 27, 35). Contributory infringement is based on allegations that the products are specially made for infringement 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 alleges knowledge based on PhunkeeDuck's awareness of Segway's own products, which have allegedly been on the market since 2001 and marked with patent information since at least October 2011, thereby providing at least constructive notice (Compl. ¶¶ 18, 26, 34). The complaint also asserts that Defendant had actual knowledge at least as of the filing of the complaint (Compl. ¶¶ 18, 26, 34).

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

• A core issue will be one of technical evidence: what are the precise algorithms and hardware configurations of the accused product's control and safety systems? The case will likely depend on discovery of Defendant's source code and technical specifications to determine if its products perform the specific functions recited in the claims, such as calculating a "balancing margin" ('230 Patent) or implementing active, pitch-based speed limiting ('984 Patent).
• A second key issue will be one of claim construction: can the term "balancing margin monitor," which is defined in the claim with reference to velocity, be interpreted to cover more general power-management or battery-monitoring safety systems? Similarly, how broadly will the court construe "detected body orientation" ('607 Patent) in a product class where control is universally based on foot-activated pressure sensors?
• A final question will be one of knowledge and intent: can Plaintiffs establish that Defendant knew of, or was willfully blind to, the specific patents-in-suit before the lawsuit was filed, based on general market awareness and patent markings on Plaintiffs' own products, sufficient to support a finding of willfulness?