I agree, however the first date Changzhou could have seen the patent application was its actual date of publication.<p>I am skeptical Changzhou could have gone from reading this application, which is about ideas and not specific implementation and design, to engineering a manifestation of that patent, setting up a production line, testing, marketing, boxing, and selling these products between November and January.<p>I would say that Changzhou has obviously been working on a similar design in parallel. When they started is not clear though.<p>Both are also clearly derivative from, and in violation of, Kamen&#x27;s patents.<p>There&#x27;s already several products from other companies that are one wheeled unicycle kamen devices. The hoverboards are mini Segways without the needed handle for stabilization. The more sensible front to back skateboard concept has been discussed in various places. It&#x27;s not unreasonable to expect that many people were working on the design in parallel.<p>The facts are though that the Chinese company failed to secure a US patent. That is their downfall in the US market.<p>To say they stole the design is premature.