SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Commission instituted this investigation on March 5, 2026, based on a complaint filed on behalf of Inventist, Inc. of Camas, WA and Alien Technology Group, Inc. d/b/a Alien Rides. of San Francisco, CA (collectively, “Complainants”). 91 FR 10,827 (Mar. 5, 2026). The complaint, as amended, alleged violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain gyro-stabilized electric unicycles and components thereof and products containing the same by reason of the infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,807,250 and the claim of U.S. Patent No. D729,698. Id. The complaint, as amended, further alleged that an industry in the United States exists or is in the process of being established as required by the applicable Federal Statute. Id. The Commission's notice of investigation named the following respondents: Inmotion Technologies Co., Ltd. d/b/a Inmotion (“Inmotion”); Guangzhou Veteran Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd. d/b/a LeaperKim; Dong Guan BEGODE Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd. d/b/a BEGODE; Shenzhen King Song Intelligence Technology Co., Ltd. d/b/a Kingsong; Guangzhou JiDongTai Intelligent Equipment Co., Ltd. d/b/a Nosfet, all of Guangdong, China. Id. The Office of Unfair Import Investigations (“OUII”) was also named as a party in this investigation. Id.

Respondent Inmotion has been terminated from the investigation based on a settlement agreement. Order No. 11 (May 21, 2026), unreviewed by Comm'n Notice (Jun. 18, 2026).

On August 7, 2026, Complainants filed a motion to amend the complaint and notice of investigation to add LeaperKim Coyote as a respondent pursuant to Commission Rule 210.14(b). OUII filed a response in support of the motion.

On August 18, 2026, the ALJ issued the subject ID (Order No. 18), granting the motion to amend the complaint and notice of investigation to add LeaperKim Coyote as a respondent. The ID found Complainants demonstrated good cause to grant the motion. Order No. 18 at 2 (Aug. 18, 2026). Specifically, the ID observed that good cause exists to grant the motion because Complainants recently “learned through LeaperKim Coyote's former pro se representative [] that the originally named LeaperKim respondent, Guangzhou Veteran Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd. d/b/a LeaperKim [], is allegedly defunct, and that LeaperKim Coyote is allegedly a separate legal entity that currently owns the LeaperKim trademark.” Id. (quoting Mot. at 1, Doc. ID No. 890866 (Aug. 7, 2026)). The ID noted that Complainants argued that “[g]ranting the requested amendment will not prejudice any party or the public interest.” Id. (quoting Mot. at 1). No petitions for review were filed.

The Commission has determined not to review the subject ID. Respondent LeaperKim Coyote is added as a respondent in this investigation.

The Commission vote for this determination took place on September 15, 2026.

The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, and in Part 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR part 210.

91 FR 59160