Great, I’ll gather information on all legal actions—including lawsuits, cease-and-desist letters, and ITC complaints—initiated by Future Motion against companies such as Fungineers, Floatwheel, The Float Life, and any other relevant entities. I’ll focus on U.S. cases since 2020, with brief mentions of any international actions if applicable.I’ll let you know as soon as I have a detailed overview ready.

Future Motion’s Legal Actions Against Competing Companies (2020–2025)

Future Motion, Inc. – maker of the Onewheel electric skateboard – has actively enforced its intellectual property and market position since 2020 through lawsuits, cease-and-desist letters, and even an ITC trade complaint. These actions have targeted both U.S. aftermarket vendors and overseas competitorsconsumerrights.wiki. The table below summarizes known legal actions taken by Future Motion against other companies in this period:

Below, we provide more detail on each of these cases and actions, including their timelines, claims, and current status.

JW Batteries Lawsuit (2021–2022)

Type of action: Federal civil lawsuit (right-to-repair dispute)
Filed: August 31, 2021iowa-newsletter.mailchimpsites.com in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (Case No. 3:21-cv-06771).
Defendant: JW Batteries LLC – a Texas-based small business selling aftermarket Onewheel battery upgrades.
Key claims: Future Motion alleged that JW Batteries’ products violated the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) anti-circumvention provisions and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), and also infringed Future Motion’s trademarksiowa-newsletter.mailchimpsites.comiowa-newsletter.mailchimpsites.com. Specifically, JW Batteries sold a device called the JWFFM chip that “spoofs” or mimics the proprietary battery-controller pairing in newer Onewheel models, allowing riders to install third-party batteriesiowa-newsletter.mailchimpsites.comiowa-newsletter.mailchimpsites.com. Future Motion claimed this chip unlawfully circumvented the Onewheel’s software protections (a DMCA §1201 violation) and constituted unauthorized access to a protected system (CFAA)iowa-newsletter.mailchimpsites.comiowa-newsletter.mailchimpsites.com. Additionally, JW Batteries marketed an extended-range battery as “JWXR” – using the letters “XR” similar to Future Motion’s Onewheel+ XR branding – which FM argued infringed its stylized “XR” trademarkfallman.techiowa-newsletter.mailchimpsites.com.Outcome: The California court dismissed the lawsuit in May 2022 on procedural grounds (lack of personal jurisdiction)fallman.tech. JW Batteries is based in Texas and was found to have insufficient contacts with California (no operations or offices there, only selling to CA customers via a general website)fallman.techfallman.tech. Judge Edward M. Chen granted JW’s motion to dismiss on May 2, 2022, resulting in a judgment for the defendantfallman.tech. This was a significant short-term win for JW and the Onewheel right-to-repair community. However, Future Motion indicated it would refile the case in Texas, where JW Batteries is domiciledfallman.tech. (As of 2025, no publicly reported re-filing or final resolution in Texas has been documented.) Notably, JW Batteries reportedly incurred over $100,000 in legal costs to achieve the California dismissalfallman.tech, illustrating how costly such litigation can be even when the small company prevails early.Implications: This lawsuit sent a chilling message to third-party mod vendorswiki.rossmanngroup.comwiki.rossmanngroup.com. It demonstrated Future Motion’s willingness to use copyright law and anti-circumvention statutes to lock down hardware and deter aftermarket solutions. The case drew significant backlash from Onewheel riders who support right-to-repair, as JW’s chip enabled battery replacements and upgrades that many owners felt were reasonable improvements to a product they ownedfallman.techfallman.tech. JW Batteries publicly vowed to fight “bullying” by Future Motion and defend consumers’ ability to modify their own devicesfallman.techfallman.tech. While the initial case did not reach a merits judgment, it highlighted the legal conflict between manufacturers and independent innovators in the personal electric vehicle space.

The Float Life Cease-and-Desist (2020/2021)

Type of action: Cease-and-desist letter (no lawsuit filed).
Date: Late 2020 or early 2021 (approximately, based on community reports).
Target: The Float Life (TFL) – a California-based company well-known for Onewheel accessories and mods.
Issue: Future Motion demanded that The Float Life stop selling a product called the “Drop Top Fender” for the Onewheel Pint. This aftermarket fender featured a convertible design (it could switch between a half-fender and full fender) that Future Motion claimed was too close to its own fender design. The C&D letter asserted that TFL’s Drop Top Fender for the Pint infringed Future Motion’s intellectual property – likely a design patent or similar rights related to Onewheel fenderswww.reddit.comconsumerrights.wiki.Outcome: The Float Life acknowledged receiving the cease-and-desist and expressed frustration with Future Motion’s hostile approachwww.reddit.comwww.reddit.com. Rather than fight in court, TFL apparently complied: they halted sales (or redesigned) the Pint Drop Top Fender to avoid legal escalation. (TFL’s current fender products are mainly for other models like XR/GT, and any Pint fender designs were presumably adjusted or sold only after ensuring no IP conflict.) No lawsuit was filed against TFL on this matter, so this dispute ended with Future Motion effectively forcing a small product off the market via legal threats. This C&D incident contributed to community resentment, as riders saw it as stifling innovation and third-party improvements. TFL remained in business and continues to sell many other Onewheel accessories, but this episode exemplifies Future Motion’s willingness to protect even minor product designs through legal means.

Land-Surf Cease-and-Desist (2020/2021)

Type of action: Cease-and-desist letter.
Date: Around 2020–2021 (concurrent with other accessory crackdowns).
Target: Land-Surf, LLC – a maker of Onewheel aftermarket parts (notably the “Fangs” bumper wheels and other add-ons).
Issue: Future Motion sent Land-Surf a C&D concerning Land-Surf’s custom bumpers for the Onewheel. Onewheel “bumpers” are the plastic plates on the nose and tail of the board that absorb impact. Land-Surf had designed and sold enhanced bumpers (including versions with built-in wheels like Fangs to help recover from nosedives). Future Motion’s letter alleged that Land-Surf’s bumper designs infringed on Future Motion’s design patents/trade dress for the Onewheel’s bumpersconsumerrights.wiki. In essence, FM claimed exclusive rights over the shape and design of replacement bumpers.Outcome: Land-Surf did not publicly fight the claim; instead, it modified its bumper products to steer clear of infringement. (For example, Land-Surf’s latest “Bash Bumpers” for the Onewheel GT have a distinct shape and added features, differentiating them from FM’s stock bumpers.land-surf.com) The company continues to sell Onewheel accessories, which suggests the dispute was handled quietly without litigation – likely via compliance with the C&D or a private settlement. Like the TFL fender incident, this underscores Future Motion’s aggressive posture even on accessories: authorized dealers were also warned not to carry any third-party parts, under threat of losing dealership statuswww.reddit.com. These enforcement actions effectively limited consumer choice by pressuring aftermarket vendors to alter or drop products that competed with Future Motion’s own parts.

“OneWave” App DMCA Takedown (2018/2019)

Type of action: Digital Millennium Copyright Act takedown notice (via app stores/GitHub).
Date: 2018–2019 (approximately).
Target: OneWave – a third-party mobile app created by the Onewheel community (as an alternative to Future Motion’s official Onewheel app). OneWave, and related projects like Ponewheel, enabled Onewheel riders to access diagnostic data and custom ride profiles beyond the official app’s limitations.
Issue: Future Motion invoked the DMCA to remove or disable the distribution of the OneWave app, claiming it infringed on Future Motion’s software copyrights or constituted unauthorized access to firmware. Essentially, the third-party app interfaced with the Onewheel’s internal systems (reading battery cells, modifying settings, etc.), which FM considered a violation of its rights. According to community documentation, Future Motion filed a DMCA claim that forced OneWave’s developers to take down certain code repositories and app releasesconsumerrights.wiki.Outcome: The OneWave app was taken offline from official channels. In response, the developer reportedly open-sourced part of the code and provided an Android APK for users who still wanted to use itgithub.com. The incident demonstrated Future Motion’s stance against software mods: by treating third-party apps as a copyright infringement, FM attempted to shut down unapproved diagnostic tools. This move, coming before hardware lawsuits, signaled FM’s overall strategy to maintain control over the Onewheel ecosystem. (Notably, the community has since developed other open-source tools, but developers remain cautious due to FM’s past DMCA action.)

Floatwheel Patent Litigation & ITC Case (2021–Present)

Type of action: Patent infringement lawsuits (federal court) and ITC Section 337 trade complaint.
Targets: Floatwheel – a China-based maker of one-wheeled self-balancing boards (Floatwheel models ADV and ADV Pro), and related entities (manufacturers/distributors in China such as Changzhou Smilo Motors, Changzhou Gaea Technology, and Shanghai Loyal/SoverSky). The principal individual behind Floatwheel is Tony Lai.
Overview: Floatwheel is essentially a direct competitor to Future Motion’s Onewheel, offering a similar single-wheel electric board. Unlike Onewheel, Floatwheel’s product is marketed as DIY-friendly and repairable, which appealed to enthusiasts frustrated with Onewheel’s closed system. Future Motion has launched a multi-pronged legal attack on Floatwheel:

• 2021 Lawsuit (N.D. California): In April 2021, Future Motion filed a patent infringement suit against “John Doe d/b/a Floatwheel,” later identified as Tony Lai. This case (N.D. Cal. Case No. 3:21-cv-03022) focused on Floatwheel’s sale of DIY board kits that customers could assemble into a one-wheeled skateboardinsight.rpxcorp.com. Future Motion alleged these kits infringed at least two of its patents covering the self-balancing electric skateboard technology. Floatwheel did not appear in court (the company was overseas and had masked its online identity), so Future Motion obtained a default judgment. In January 2022, Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers entered a permanent injunction barring Floatwheel from importing or selling its one-wheel board kits in the U.S.insight.rpxcorp.cominsight.rpxcorp.com. This initial victory for Future Motion was largely symbolic, as enforcing the injunction proved difficult – Floatwheel operated via indirect channels and kept a low profile in the U.S.insight.rpxcorp.com. Nevertheless, it set the stage that Floatwheel’s products were deemed infringing if sold in America.
• 2023 Lawsuit (D. Oregon): Floatwheel resurfaced with fully assembled boards (the Floatwheel ADV series) in 2023, continuing to reach U.S. customers. In response, Future Motion filed a new lawsuit on November 27, 2023 in the District of Oregon (Future Motion, Inc. v. Tony Lai, Case No. 3:23-cv-01742)dockets.justia.com. FM chose Oregon presumably because it gathered evidence of Floatwheel sales and shipments to customers in Oregon (establishing jurisdiction)insight.rpxcorp.cominsight.rpxcorp.com. This complaint asserts four U.S. patents held by Future Motion, including its core self-balancing board patents and a footpad sensor patent, are infringed by the Floatwheel ADV and ADV Pro boardsinsight.rpxcorp.com. Key claims are that Floatwheel’s boards copy the fundamental one-wheel board technology (motorized wheel with dynamic balancing based on rider positioning) as well as specific innovations like FM’s pressure-sensitive footpadsinsight.rpxcorp.cominsight.rpxcorp.com. Additionally, Future Motion accused Floatwheel of inducing infringement by publishing how-to assembly videos and instructions for its kits, thereby teaching U.S. users to build an infringing deviceinsight.rpxcorp.cominsight.rpxcorp.com.Progress: In December 2023, the Oregon court swiftly granted a preliminary injunction forbidding Floatwheel and Tony Lai from selling or promoting the ADV boards in the U.S.dockets.justia.comdockets.justia.com. Notably, Floatwheel’s side did not appear at the preliminary injunction hearing, and the injunction was issued by Judge Michael Simon by the end of 2023dockets.justia.com. Despite this order, Floatwheel allegedly ignored the injunction – evidence emerged that they continued marketing to U.S. customers via alternate websites or channels. Consequently, Future Motion went back to court, and in June 2024 the judge issued an even more stringent second preliminary injunction to enforce compliancenews.bloomberglaw.com. The court found that Floatwheel “flouted or willfully ignored” the prior order and took the unusual step of directing internet service providers to cancel or disable Floatwheel’s online services in the U.S. (e.g. shutting down their website, ecommerce accounts)news.bloomberglaw.com. As of mid-2024, the case was ongoing – Floatwheel’s continued non-appearance could lead to another default judgment, or if they engage, the case would proceed to trial on patent infringement. The outcome remains pending, but meanwhile Floatwheel’s visibility in the U.S. market has been severely curtailed by the injunctions.
• ITC Complaint (Dec 2023): In parallel with the Oregon lawsuit, Future Motion escalated the fight to the U.S. International Trade Commission. On December 5, 2023, FM filed a Section 337 complaint with the ITC (Investigation No. 337-TA-1386) seeking to bar the importation of “certain self-balancing electric skateboards and components thereof.”www.fr.cominternationaltradetoday.com The complaint names Floatwheel and its Chinese manufacturers (Changzhou Gaea, Changzhou Smilo, and Shanghai Loyal/SoverSky) as respondentsinternationaltradetoday.cominternationaltradetoday.com. Future Motion alleges these imported boards infringe the same set of FM patents at issue in the court caseinternationaltradetoday.com. The goal is a General Exclusion Order (GEO) – a broad trade remedy that would block any infringing one-wheeled boards from entering the U.S., not just Floatwheel-branded unitsinternationaltradetoday.com. In January 2024, the ITC voted to institute the investigation, indicating it found the complaint sufficiently substantiveinternationaltradetoday.com. The case is being heard by an administrative law judge, and if Future Motion prevails, the ITC could issue an exclusion order (and cease-and-desist orders against the named foreign companies) sometime in late 2024 or 2025. An exclusion order would empower U.S. Customs to seize infringing boards at the border, effectively keeping Floatwheel and similar knock-offs out of the country. (This ITC action mirrors Future Motion’s use of trade enforcement in the past – see the 2016 case below.) Summary: Future Motion’s actions against Floatwheel represent a full-court press using patent law. By filing in federal court (for damages/injunction) and at the ITC (for an import ban), FM is attempting to eliminate Floatwheel’s presence in the U.S. market. The legal basis is patent infringement – FM is leveraging its patents on one-wheel self-balancing vehicle technology, which have now been issued for several years. The Floatwheel saga has been closely watched in the personal electric vehicle community. To Floatwheel’s supporters, the company offered a more repairable, perhaps safer alternative to Onewheel (Floatwheel batteries are not software-locked and the boards are less prone to sudden “nosedive” cutouts). Future Motion’s aggressive litigation is viewed by critics as an effort to quash competition and maintain a monopoly on one-wheeled boards, rather than to protect genuine innovation. As of 2025, the Floatwheel case is still unfolding, with the Oregon court case active and the ITC investigation pending. How it resolves will likely shape the future landscape for third-party personal electric boards.

Fungineers (Funwheel Kits) – No Legal Action (Yet)

Type of action: N/A – no known filed action as of 2025.
Target: Fungineers – a U.S.-based group that produces the “Funwheel”, a do-it-yourself kit for building a Onewheel-like device. The Funwheel kit provides rails, a motor, and electronics (often using the open-source VESC controller), allowing hobbyists to assemble their own self-balancing one-wheel board. It is essentially an open-hardware answer to the proprietary Onewheel, and it embraces user modifications and repair.Future Motion’s stance: Given Funwheel’s concept is very similar to Onewheel, many in the community have speculated that Future Motion may eventually target Fungineers with legal action just as it did Floatwheelwww.reddit.com. Funwheel could arguably be seen as infringing FM’s patents as well, since it’s a self-balancing single-wheeled skateboard. However, there are a few reasons Future Motion might thus far have held off: (1) Fungineers sells kits and components, not fully assembled boards, potentially making patent infringement claims less straightforward (though the 2021 Floatwheel kit case shows FM can still claim infringement by the kit); (2) the Funwheel community is smaller and somewhat underground compared to Floatwheel, so FM may not have deemed it an imminent threat; (3) Fungineers might have taken care not to violate any of Future Motion’s trademarks or copyrighted software (the VESC controller is independent, and no FM code is used). No cease-and-desist letters or lawsuits against Fungineers have been reported publicly as of mid-2025. Fungineers continues to openly advertise its kits online.Bottom line: While Future Motion has not yet taken legal action against Fungineers, it remains a possibility. The Onewheel community is watching closely, especially after the Floatwheel outcome. If Funwheel’s popularity grows or if Future Motion feels its patents are being widely infringed by these kits, Future Motion could decide to file a similar patent suit or ITC complaint. For now, Fungineers represents a rare case of a competitor in the one-wheel space that has not (yet) been drawn into Future Motion’s legal battles.

International Enforcement and Notable Pre-2020 Case

Although the focus is on 2020 onward, it’s worth noting Future Motion’s earlier international IP enforcement to contextualize its recent actions. A landmark incident occurred in 2016 at CES (Consumer Electronics Show) in Las Vegas, involving a Chinese company:

• Changzhou “Trotter” Case (2016): Changzhou First International Trade Co. showcased a one-wheeled electric board called the “Trotter,” which resembled the Onewheel. Future Motion, holding a newly granted patent at the time, took drastic action: it obtained a court order during CES 2016 to raid Changzhou’s booth. U.S. Marshals seized the Trotter boards, marketing materials, and even the booth signage on the CES show floorwww.slashgear.comwww.slashgear.com. Future Motion had first sent a cease-and-desist to the Chinese company (which was ignored), then got an emergency injunction to stop the display of the competing devicewww.slashgear.com. The raid made headlines and underscored Future Motion’s willingness to enforce its patents internationally. However, the aftermath was complicated – Changzhou First retaliated with legal arguments and sought damages, claiming that one-wheeled board concepts weren’t solely FM’s invention and pointing out differences in designwww.slashgear.comwww.slashgear.com. Just a month later, Future Motion quietly dropped its lawsuit against Changzhouwww.slashgear.comwww.slashgear.com. According to reports, FM’s lawyer admitted the legal costs to pursue the case through trial would be prohibitive (potentially “seven-figure” costs)www.slashgear.com. Changzhou, for its part, demanded ~$100,000 in damages for the disruption. The case ended without a clear winner, but it established a precedent. The Changzhou incident, though outside our 2020+ window, is a relevant international case because it mirrors what is happening now with Floatwheel. It shows that as early as 2016, Future Motion was ready to use U.S. patent law to block foreign knock-offs – even to the point of show-floor raids – but also that it had to calculate the financial risks of protracted litigation. Today, with a more mature patent portfolio (and likely more resources), Future Motion is again tackling Chinese manufacturers (Floatwheel and others) through the ITC and courts. The global dimension of these disputes is clear: Future Motion seeks to control not just the U.S. market but to prevent overseas companies from undercutting its product with similar devices.

Sources: The information above is compiled from legal filings, court docket records, and credible community documentation. Key sources include public court dockets and orders (e.g. N.D. Cal. Case 3:21-cv-06771fallman.tech; D. Or. Case 3:23-cv-01742dockets.justia.comdockets.justia.com), an International Trade Commission noticeinternationaltradetoday.com, and community reports (the International OneWheel Association’s newsletteriowa-newsletter.mailchimpsites.comiowa-newsletter.mailchimpsites.com, Onewheel enthusiast forumswww.reddit.com, consumer rights advocacy wikisconsumerrights.wiki, and tech media coverage of the CES raidwww.slashgear.comwww.slashgear.com). These provide a comprehensive record of Future Motion’s legal actions against third parties, from cease-and-desist letters to patent lawsuits and trade complaints. Each case highlights the ongoing tension between Future Motion’s efforts to protect its innovations and the broader personal electric vehicle community’s push for competition and repairability. consumerrights.wikinews.bloomberglaw.cominternationaltradetoday.com