Unicorn Global v. DGL Group: Hoverboard Patent Dispute Ends After 994 Days
Unicorn Global and Hangzhou Chic Intelligent Technology alleged that DGL Group's Hover-1 hoverboard lineup infringed US10597107B2. After 994 days of litigation in the Eastern District of New York, the parties jointly moved to end the case — plaintiffs' claims dismissed without prejudice, defendant's counterclaims dismissed without prejudice, each side bearing its own costs.
A Three-Year Hoverboard Patent Fight Ends by Mutual Stipulation
On March 18, 2021, Unicorn Global, Inc. and Hangzhou Chic Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd. filed suit against DGL Group, Ltd. in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Case No. 1:21-cv-01443), asserting infringement of US10597107B2. The accused products comprised DGL's extensive Hover-1 consumer hoverboard range, spanning fifteen distinct product lines including the Hover-1 Ultra, Helix, Titan, Chrome 2.0, Eclipse, Matrix, Horizon, Beast, and X10.
The recorded basis of termination is Dismissed without Prejudice. The docket order — filed as a joint motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) — states that plaintiffs' claims against defendant were dismissed with prejudice, while defendant's claims against plaintiffs were dismissed without prejudice, with each party bearing its own costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees. The specific terms underlying the parties' agreement to resolve the dispute are not disclosed in the available record.
The case ran for 994 days before the joint stipulation was filed on December 7, 2023. The extended duration before resolution is consistent with substantive pre-trial proceedings in patent cases of this complexity, though what specifically drove the parties toward a joint resolution at this stage is not disclosed in the public record. The absence of any cost award to either side suggests the parties reached a mutually acceptable end without a prevailing-party determination.
See Complete Case & Patent Analysis →Filing to Dismissed without Prejudice in 994 days
994 days — nearly three years of active litigation before resolution
US10597107B2 — Self-balancing personal mobility scooter technology
Any company designing, manufacturing, importing, or distributing self-balancing two-wheeled personal mobility devices in the United States should assess exposure to US10597107B2. This case demonstrates that the patent has been actively asserted against a broad product family — fifteen distinct consumer hoverboard SKUs — with no invalidity finding to narrow or extinguish those claims. The risk is not limited to direct competitors of DGL Group.
Official order — verbatim text
The joint stipulation invokes Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) and draws a deliberate distinction: plaintiffs' claims are described as dismissed with prejudice while defendant's counterclaims are without prejudice. The recorded basis of termination, however, is Dismissed without Prejudice. No merits findings, damages award, or injunctive relief appear in the order, and the specific terms underlying the parties' agreement to resolve on these asymmetric terms are not disclosed in the available record.
Dismissed without prejudice: what the resolution means for both parties
Rule 41 joint stipulation: how the case was closed
The parties invoked Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), which permits voluntary dismissal by stipulation signed by all parties. No court order on the merits was required. The recorded basis of termination is Dismissed without Prejudice. The docket order itself distinguishes plaintiffs' claims (with prejudice) from defendant's counterclaims (without prejudice); the specific terms driving those distinctions are not disclosed in the available record.
Stipulated dismissalPlaintiffs' hoverboard IP claims: what 'without prejudice' means here
The recorded basis of termination is Dismissed without Prejudice, meaning the public docket does not carry a final merits ruling against the plaintiffs. The underlying stipulation order, however, states plaintiffs' claims were dismissed with prejudice. The specific terms are not disclosed in the available record, and the public record does not resolve this characterisation. US10597107B2 remains a live patent asset.
No merits rulingDGL Group's counterclaims survive without prejudice
Per the joint stipulation order, DGL Group's claims against the plaintiffs were dismissed without prejudice, preserving the defendant's ability to reassert those claims if future circumstances warrant. No cost or fee award was made against DGL Group. The Hover-1 product range is not subject to any injunctive order or damages finding on the public record.
Counterclaims preservedSelf-balancing scooter IP remains active enforcement territory
US10597107B2 remains in force and has not been invalidated or disclaimed through this litigation. Competitors and distributors in the consumer hoverboard market should note that the patent's enforceability is unresolved on the merits. The absence of a damages or injunction order means no public precedent constrains future assertion of this patent against other products or parties.
Patent still in forceFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Unicorn Global, Inc. | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Plaintiff | Hangzhou Chic Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | DGL Group, Ltd. | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Hao Ni | Attorney | Counsel for Unicorn Global, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | John H. Choi | Attorney | Counsel for Unicorn Global, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Stevenson Moore | Attorney | Counsel for Unicorn Global, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Timothy T. Wang | Attorney | Counsel for Unicorn Global, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | John H. Choi & Associates LLC | Law Firm | Representing Unicorn Global, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Ni Law Firm PLLC | Law Firm | Representing Unicorn Global, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Ni, Wang & Massand, PLLC | Law Firm | Representing Unicorn Global, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Bryan Jaketic | Attorney | Counsel for DGL Group, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Rachel Harris | Attorney | Counsel for DGL Group, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Steven M. Auvil | Attorney | Counsel for DGL Group, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP | Law Firm | Representing DGL Group, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | New York Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
R&D signals in the self-balancing personal mobility space
Forward-looking patent and innovation intelligence derived from the Unicorn Global and Hangzhou Chic enforcement action — relevant to any team active in consumer personal mobility R&D.
Hangzhou Chic's US patent footprint in hoverboard tech
Hangzhou Chic Intelligent Technology is a foundational manufacturer in the global hoverboard supply chain and holds US patent rights in self-balancing scooter technology. Mapping its full US filing portfolio — including continuations, divisionals, and co-assigned patents with Unicorn Global — reveals the breadth of its enforceable IP and the potential reach of future assertion campaigns.
Active enforcement portfolioFiling trends in self-balancing two-wheeled vehicle tech
The personal electric mobility category — including hoverboards, self-balancing scooters, and adjacent last-mile devices — has attracted sustained patent filing activity from both Asian manufacturers and US consumer electronics distributors. Tracking claim-level trends around balance control systems, wheel motor integration, and safety electronics can identify where the next enforcement flashpoints are likely to emerge.
Growing filing activityDGL Group's patent position in the Hover-1 product ecosystem
DGL Group distributes the Hover-1 product family and was the sole defendant in this action. Understanding its own patent holdings — if any — and its freedom-to-operate position relative to Hangzhou Chic's portfolio is relevant for competitors operating in the same retail and distribution channels. The preservation of DGL's counterclaims without prejudice suggests the company may retain offensive or defensive IP positions worth monitoring.
Counterclaims preservedAdjacent innovation opportunities near US10597107B2's claim scope
US10597107B2 covers self-balancing personal mobility scooter technology, but adjacent areas — including smart connectivity features, battery management systems for hoverboards, and safety-certification-linked electronics — may represent white space where competitors can differentiate without entering the asserted claim scope. A landscape search around application US16/658020's cited art can surface these gaps.
Innovation white spaceSimilar hoverboard and personal mobility patent cases in US district courts
Browse comparable patent infringement actions involving self-balancing scooter technology in US district courts, including Hangzhou Chic and Unicorn Global's other enforcement proceedings.
What this case signals for the hoverboard and personal mobility IP landscape
A multi-product hoverboard patent dispute resolved without a merits ruling leaves the competitive IP landscape unsettled for the entire category.
US10597107B2 is undefeated on the merits — enforcement risk persists
The case closed without a validity or infringement ruling. Patent holders Unicorn Global and Hangzhou Chic retain a patent with no adverse finding on record. Distributors and manufacturers of self-balancing scooter products should treat this patent as an active enforcement risk and conduct freedom-to-operate analysis before market entry.
Multi-product accusations signal portfolio-level enforcement strategy
The complaint named fifteen distinct Hover-1 SKUs, consistent with a broad sweep enforcement approach targeting an entire product family rather than a single device. R&D and product teams working in the personal electric mobility space should monitor Hangzhou Chic and Unicorn Global's filing activity for continuation or divisional patents that could extend coverage.
Unicorn v DGL — key questions answered
The recorded basis of termination is Dismissed without Prejudice. The parties jointly moved under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) to end the case. The docket order states plaintiffs' claims were dismissed with prejudice and defendant's counterclaims without prejudice, with each party bearing its own costs. The specific terms of the parties' agreement are not disclosed in the available record.
The plaintiffs asserted US10597107B2 (application number US16/658020), covering self-balancing personal mobility scooter technology. The accused products were fifteen Hover-1 branded hoverboard models distributed by DGL Group, ranging from the Hover-1 Ultra to the Hover-1 X10.
No. The case closed without any merits ruling on validity or infringement. The joint stipulation dismissed the claims without a court finding on the substance of the patent dispute. US10597107B2 remains in force and has not been invalidated or found not infringed through this proceeding.
The recorded basis of termination — Dismissed without Prejudice — means no final merits judgment was entered against either party. The Hover-1 products are not subject to any injunction or damages finding from this case. However, the docket order itself describes plaintiffs' claims as dismissed with prejudice; the specific terms are not disclosed in the available record, so the practical enforceability implications require independent legal assessment.
The plaintiffs were represented by Hao Ni, John H. Choi, Stevenson Moore, and Timothy T. Wang, from John H. Choi & Associates LLC, Ni Law Firm PLLC, and Ni, Wang & Massand, PLLC. The defendant DGL Group was represented by Bryan Jaketic, Rachel Harris, and Steven M. Auvil of Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP.
This page is compiled from public court dockets and third-party patent and litigation data via PatSnap Eureka, and is provided for general informational purposes only. The information shown — including party names, patent and application numbers, dates, case status, outcomes, and any analysis — may be incomplete, may not reflect the most recent filings or legal status, and may contain errors or omissions. Verify all details against official court records (for example, PACER) and the relevant patent office before relying on them.
Nothing on this page constitutes legal advice or a legal opinion on the validity, infringement, enforceability, or scope of any patent or case, and no attorney‑client relationship is created by its use. Any description of an outcome (such as a dismissal, settlement, or consent judgment) is a general summary, not a legal determination. All patents, trademarks, and company or law‑firm names are the property of their respective owners. PatSnap makes no warranty as to the accuracy or completeness of this content and disclaims, to the fullest extent permitted by law, all liability for reliance on it. For advice on a specific matter, consult qualified legal counsel.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.