Segway’s claim is broad. I’m no lawyer, but I’d say they have a case and it would make it past discovery.
Inventists saying their invention is “small” is meaningless. And since Segway’s independent claim does not include mention of their “handlebar”, Inventist’s lack of a “handlebar” is also meaningless.
- A vehicle for carrying a payload including a user, the vehicle comprising:
a. a platform which supports the user;
b. a ground-contacting module, to which the platform is mounted, which propels the user in desired motion over an underlying surface;
c. a motorized drive arrangement, coupled to the ground-contacting module; the drive arrangement, ground-contacting module and payload comprising a system being unstable with respect to tipping when the motorized drive is not powered; the motorized drive arrangement causing, when powered, automatically balanced operation of the system wherein the vehicle has a present velocity and a maximum operating velocity, determined by a requirement of acceleration to maintain balance and, in operation, has a balancing margin determined by the difference between the maximum operating velocity and the present velocity of the vehicle;
d. a balancing margin monitor, coupled to the ground-contacting module, for generating a signal characterizing the balancing margin; and
e. an alarm, coupled to the balancing margin monitor, for receiving the signal characterizing the balancing margin and for warning when the balancing margin falls below a specified limit.