PEVRA public statement on ITC Investigation 337-TA-3877

Certain Gyro-Stabilized Electric Unicycles and Components Thereof

For immediate release · February 10, 2026San Francisco, Calif.

On February 10, 2026, the Personal Electric Vehicle Riders Association (PEVRA) filed a public interest comment with the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) in Docket No. 337-TA-3877. The investigation concerns a complaint by Inventist, Inc. and Alien Technology Group, Inc. (doing business as Alien Rides) seeking to exclude imports of electric unicycles manufactured by Begode, Leaperkim, Inmotion, Kingsong and Nosfet.

PEVRA's position: we respectfully oppose a General Exclusion Order and urge the Commission to weigh the public interest before issuing any import restriction on electric unicycles.

Why PEVRA filed

PEVRA represents electric unicycle riders and the wider personal electric vehicle community in the United States. An investigation that could remove access to every major brand on the U.S. market needed an organized rider voice in the record. If the requested order is granted, the great majority of the U.S. market is eliminated, existing riders lose replacement parts and authorized service, no domestic manufacturer stands ready to fill the gap, and riders with disabilities who depend on these devices for mobility are left without options.

PEVRA's arguments

• Safety requires access, not exclusion. An electric unicycle carries a rider on a high-capacity lithium-ion battery. It needs maintenance, qualified service and manufacturer parts to stay safe. A broad import ban orphans thousands of devices, pushes riders toward unverified grey-market parts and unsafe repairs, and removes the technicians who know the machines. The Consumer Product Safety Commission's own approach to these devices works through retailers and manufacturers, not import bans.
• Electric unicycles serve real mobility needs. Riders with balance impairments use seated configurations; the retractable handle is a walking support for the last hundred feet; the device is more portable than a mobility scooter and has more range than a wheelchair. Many riders use one as their primary transportation.
• No domestic alternative exists. No U.S. facility produces complete electric unicycles or their core components. Exclusion would not move demand to a domestic product. It would remove the choice.
• If a violation is found, calibrate the remedy. PEVRA takes no position on patent validity or infringement. If a violation is found, we urge a Limited Exclusion Order aimed at specific products rather than a blanket order, carve-outs for replacement and safety-critical parts, and consideration of licensing that keeps the market open.

What PEVRA did not argue

PEVRA took no position on validity or infringement, advocated for no particular respondent, said nothing about the complainants personally, and stayed out of litigation in other forums. Our aim was a complete public interest record, not the merits of the patent claims.

The community response

PEVRA's was one of dozens of public interest comments. Individual riders, small business owners, content creators, regional riding groups, and disabled veterans and riders with mobility challenges all filed. We are proud to stand with them.

What happens next

The Commission reviews the filings and decides whether to institute a formal investigation. If it does, an Administrative Law Judge hears the evidence and the Commission makes a final determination on violation and remedy. If the matter reaches the remedy phase there will likely be a second window for public interest comment. PEVRA is monitoring the docket and will keep riders informed.

PEVRA is not affiliated with any manufacturer, retailer or party to this investigation.

Contact

Jesse Garnier, Executive Director, PEVRA — jesse@pevra.org

Related:

• ITC EDIS docket, Investigation No. 337-TA-3877