A storm is brewing that’s got riders buzzing and fuming.
Alien Rides, a prominent US-based electric unicycle (EUC) retailer, is facing explosive accusations of leveraging patents to restrict imports of popular Chinese-made models, effectively aiming to monopolize the market.
Hot debates are raging across EUC Facebook groups and subreddits, with users calling for boycotts and slamming the company for what they see as anti-competitive tactics in partnership with inventor Shane Chen’s Inventist.
Alien Rides and Inventist File A Complaint With The ITC
Recent filings reveal that Alien Rides (operating as Alien Technology Group) has teamed up with Shane Chen and his company Inventist; the original inventor behind early self-balancing unicycles like the Solowheel, to file a major complaint with the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) under Section 337 (ITC Docket No. 3877).
This action targets major Chinese Electric UniCycle brands, including InMotion, Begode, LeaperKim, KingSong, and others, seeking to block their imports into the United States.
The basis? Alleged infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,807,250 (‘250 patent), which covers key aspects of powered, gyroscopically balanced unicycles for standing riders, including leg contact surfaces for control.
Community members in Facebook groups like Electric Unicycle Unbiased EUC and Electric Unicycle dot org EUC are calling it a blatant attempt to create a monopoly.
According to discussions and shared details from the filing:
- Inventist reportedly designated Alien Rides as the sole licensed importer and manufacturer for devices using Chen’s patent in the US.
- By leveraging ITC powers which can lead to import bans, seizures, and exclusion orders, the partnership aims to force competitors to either pay royalties or exit the market entirely.
- Riders fear this could skyrocket prices, limit model availability (especially high-performance or affordable Chinese imports), and stifle innovation in a hobby already dominated by overseas manufacturing.
One heated post described it as “enforcing a private monopoly” and a “private tax” on the industry, with calls for boycotts and urgent community action spreading rapidly. Reddit threads echo the outrage, with titles like “Don’t buy from Alien Rides anymore! They’re trying to monopolize the EUC market!”
Shane Chen’s patent history is long and contentious.
He’s litigated before (e.g., against Ninebot/Segway affiliates over similar self-balancing tech, with mixed results including recent Federal Circuit rulings on damages and marking requirements).
Alien Rides has positioned itself as a key player, but this move has many accusing them of anti-competitive tactics rather than fair protection of IP.
Is this legitimate patent enforcement protecting American innovation, or a scheme to crush competition and control the booming EUC scene?
As the ITC investigation unfolds, the outcome could determine whether riders keep access to diverse, affordable options or face a future where one partnership holds the keys to the kingdom.
Alien Rides Breaks Silence on Explosive ITC Patent Battle: “We Won’t Stifle Innovation” Amid Community Outrage
In the midst of heated accusations rocking the electric unicycle community, Alien Rides has issued a direct response to the ongoing ITC investigation.
The statement, shared amid widespread calls for boycotts and fears of restricted access to affordable, high-performance EUCs, emphasizes collaboration, continuity, and industry improvement rather than restriction.
Alien Rides acknowledged the intense discussions in Facebook groups and forums, describing the passion as something they’re “proud to be a part of” and committed to nurturing. “We welcome the feedback and discussion,” the company stated. “It shows the passion of the community that we intend to continue to build.”
Addressing core concerns head-on, Alien Rides insisted their involvement isn’t about limiting options or crushing competition: “We do not intend to stifle innovation or limit your access to amazing products. Any manufacturers that want to work with us in building this community will be welcome, as long as they make a great product and are responsible members of this community, there will be a place for them moving forward.”
The retailer framed the patent dispute as a long-standing issue predating their participation: “This situation did not arise because of any single retailer or company. The underlying patent issues have existed for many years, and a formal enforcement process was likely to occur with or without our involvement.”
They positioned their role as proactive stewardship, driven by a “genuine belief in the future of electric unicycles in the United States” and a desire to honor the foundational invention that sparked the industry.
Looking ahead, Alien Rides pledged to prioritize “continuity,” working to maintain a wide variety of available models while avoiding major price hikes where possible. “Our priority moving ahead is continuity. We will work to ensure that riders continue to have access to a wide variety of electric unicycles, and we will do everything reasonably possible to avoid significant price increases.”
The company also highlighted potential upsides, viewing the moment as a chance to elevate industry standards: “This moment presents an opportunity to raise standards across the industry. Clearer frameworks and closer collaboration can help move the market toward greater stability, improved safety, and sustainable long-term growth.” This includes pushing for better quality control, documentation, and safety features like certified (e.g., UL-rated) battery systems.
Recognizing the uncertainty and anxiety among riders, Alien Rides called for patience as the ITC process unfolds and promised ongoing transparent communication. They urged the community to reach out directly with questions and cautioned against “exaggerations or alarmist statements,” reaffirming their deep care for the hobby: “Please remember that we also love this industry and this community and will be doing all we can to protect it moving forward.”
As the investigation continues potentially leading to import bans, royalties, or settlements, the EUC scene remains on edge.
Will this lead to a more regulated, safer market, or restricted choices and higher costs? The coming months will tell.