Alien Rides: Difference between revisions
new company page for alienrides euc patent complaint |
mNo edit summary |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
|Founded=2021 | |Founded=2021 | ||
|Industry=Electric vehicles,Retail | |Industry=Electric vehicles,Retail | ||
|Logo= | |Logo=Alien Rides.png | ||
|ParentCompany= | |ParentCompany= | ||
|CompanyAlias=Alien Technology Group Inc,AlienRides | |CompanyAlias=Alien Technology Group Inc,AlienRides | ||
| Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
==Incidents== | ==Incidents== | ||
==={{Main|AlienRides LLC tries and bans all importation of Electric Unicycles using patent law unless licensing fee is paid.}} | ===Monopolistic tendencies (''2026'')=== | ||
{{Main|AlienRides LLC tries and bans all importation of Electric Unicycles using patent law unless licensing fee is paid.}} | |||
Inventist and Alien Rides filed an ITC complaint on January 21, 2026, asserting U.S. Patent No. 8,807,250 and U.S. Patent No. D729,698 against five Chinese EUC manufacturers. The complaint seeks a general exclusion order that would block the named products at the U.S. border unless the manufacturers agree to licensing terms.<ref name="institution"/> The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit had previously affirmed that at least one respondent's second-generation designs did not infringe the utility patent.<ref name="cafc">{{Cite web|url=https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/24-1010.OPINION.11-14-2025_2604045.pdf|title=Inventist Inc. v. Ninebot Inc. (USA), No. 24-1010|publisher=United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit|date=November 14, 2025|access-date=2026-03-26}}</ref> | Inventist and Alien Rides filed an ITC complaint on January 21, 2026, asserting U.S. Patent No. 8,807,250 and U.S. Patent No. D729,698 against five Chinese EUC manufacturers. The complaint seeks a general exclusion order that would block the named products at the U.S. border unless the manufacturers agree to licensing terms.<ref name="institution"/> The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit had previously affirmed that at least one respondent's second-generation designs did not infringe the utility patent.<ref name="cafc">{{Cite web|url=https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/24-1010.OPINION.11-14-2025_2604045.pdf|title=Inventist Inc. v. Ninebot Inc. (USA), No. 24-1010|publisher=United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit|date=November 14, 2025|access-date=2026-03-26}}</ref> | ||