China IP, Beijing, Beijing (2026)

10/04/2026

DKEM's Patent War Hits 1 Billion Yuan With Another 200 Million Lawsuit Against Pharos

Chinese solar silver paste manufacturer DKEM (Wuxi DK Electronic Materials Co., Ltd.) has filed another 200 million yuan patent infringement lawsuit, raising its total claims against domestic rivals to 1 billion yuan, according to a stock exchange filing disclosed by DKEM on April 3.

The latest case, docketed as (2026) Humin Chu No. 2 at the Shanghai High People's Court, targets Pharos Materials Co., Ltd. and its Shanghai branch. It marks DKEM’s sixth lawsuit since 2021, all based on two core patents covering lead-tellurium-oxide thick-film paste formulations.
The disputed patents — ZL201180032359.1 and ZL201180032701.8 — originated from U.S. chemical giant DuPont de Nemours' Solamet photovoltaic paste business. DKEM gained control of the portfolio through its 696 million yuan acquisition of a 60% stake in subsidiary Solamet Materials Science Co., Ltd. in May 2025. The patents protect lead-tellurium-oxide paste systems enhanced with lithium and lithium-titanium additives — a formulation industry sources describe as essential for manufacturing mainstream solar cell technologies, including p-PERC, n-TOPCon and next-generation xBC cells. As of May 2025, Solamet Materials Science holds 227 active invention patents globally and has successfully defended the patent family against multiple invalidation challenges.

In the latest filing, DKEM alleges the defendants have used the patented technology without authorization over a long period and across a wide geographic area, causing substantial economic losses. DKEM is seeking a court order to stop the defendants from manufacturing, selling or offering infringing products, and to destroy related tooling. It also demands 200 million yuan in economic damages and reasonable enforcement costs, including treble punitive damages, plus all legal fees.

DKEM’s patent war began in August 2021, when it sued Changzhou Fusion New Material Co., Ltd. for 200 million yuan in the Suzhou Intermediate People's Court — a case timed to coincide with Fusion’s IPO process. The parties settled in August 2022.

In November 2025, DKEM sued Zhejiang Gonda Electronic Technology Co., Ltd. for another 200 million yuan in the Zhejiang High People's Court. Gonda countersued for 5 million yuan, alleging malicious IP litigation, and challenged court jurisdiction. Both the Zhejiang High Court and China’s Supreme People’s Court rejected the challenge, with the top court’s ruling final.

In January 2026, DKEM filed two separate 200 million yuan lawsuits at the Jiangsu High People's Court against Jiangsu Riyu Photovoltaic New Materials Co., Ltd. and Suzhou iSilver Materials Co., Ltd. Both cases have been docketed and are awaiting trial.

Photo source: DKEM
Click to read the full article:
https://www.chinaiptoday.com/post.html?id=2283

08/04/2026

Midea v. Xiaomi: Fourth patent lawsuit heads to trial as IP battle intensifies

The Hangzhou Intermediate People’s Court will hear on Friday the fourth patent infringement lawsuit filed by Midea against Xiaomi, as the two electronics giants shift from partners to rivals in China’s fiercely competitive smart home appliance market.

The Hangzhou Intermediate People’s Court is scheduled to hear case No. (2025) Zhe 01 Zhi Min Chu 91 on April 10, according to court dockets updated on April 5. The lawsuit was filed by Guangdong Midea Air-Conditioning Equipment Co., Ltd. against Beijing Xiaomi Electronics Co., Ltd., Xiaomi Technology Co., Ltd., Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd., and e-commerce platform Zhejiang Tmall Network Co., Ltd.

The first three other cases — Nos. 88, 89, and 90 — were all filed in August 2025 and were heard on March 9, 2026. Combined damages sought in those cases total RMB 65 million, with RMB 10 million, RMB 50 million and RMB 5 million claimed respectively, according to a Chinese intellectual property database. The specific damages sought in the fourth case have not yet been disclosed.

Beyond the infringement suits, Midea has launched an attack on the validity of Xiaomi’s patents. Between September and October 2025, Midea, through its subsidiary Midea Smart Technology Co., Ltd., filed invalidation requests with the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) against two Xiaomi invention patents: ZL201410112307.0, titled “Smart Home Appliance Control Method, Device and Terminal,” and ZL201510595907.1. An oral hearing for the first patent was held on November 26, 2025. The CNIPA has yet to issue final decisions on either request.

The legal offensive marks a dramatic turn in the relationship between the two companies. In 2015, Midea Group invested RMB 1.273 billion in Xiaomi. Following Xiaomi’s IPO, Midea gradually reduced its holdings, cashing out nearly RMB 2 billion. In March 2025, Midea disclosed in its 2024 annual report that it had sold its remaining RMB 902 million stake in Xiaomi, completely liquidating its position. The divestment came just months before Midea filed its patent suits in August 2025.

The tension reflects Xiaomi's rapid expansion into home appliances, traditionally dominated by Midea, Gree and Haier. Xiaomi's air conditioner shipments surged from 1.1 million units in 2020 to 6.8 million units in 2024, making it the country's fourth-largest brand, according to industry data.

Xiaomi, for its part, is defending on multiple fronts. The company is simultaneously engaged in patent disputes with China’s traditional home appliance giants.

Photo Source: Midea
Click to read the full article:
https://lnkd.in/dXk8KF3N

03/04/2026

Atom Therapeutics and Evopoint Biosciences Cross-Claim RMB 50 Million in Trade Secret Dispute as Both Pursue IPOs

On March 20, 2026, Atom Therapeutics Co., Ltd. disclosed in its Hong Kong Stock Exchange listing application that it is embroiled in a high-stakes intellectual property dispute with Evopoint Biosciences Co., Ltd., involving competing claims of trade secret misappropriation and malicious litigation. The dispute, which centers on gout treatment technology, has escalated into cross-claims in which each party is seeking RMB 50 million in damages, and the legal battle is closely intertwined with both companies’ IPO timelines.

According to Atom Therapeutics’ disclosure, the company initially filed a trade secret infringement lawsuit against Evopoint Biosciences with the Shanghai Intellectual Property Court in October 2024. Atom Therapeutics alleges that it had engaged in discussions with a co-founder of Evopoint Biosciences in 2017 regarding potential investment and collaboration opportunities, though no formal cooperation ultimately materialized.

Atom Therapeutics contends that Evopoint’s gout drug candidate, XNW3009—a URAT1 inhibitor that was in Phase IIb/III development until October 2025—was developed based on trade secrets misappropriated during previous discussions.

Atom Therapeutics’s complaint seeks an order requiring Evopoint Biosciences to cease the alleged trade secret misappropriation, terminate all related research, clinical trials, and commercialization activities, and pay RMB 50 million in economic damages and reasonable legal expenses.

Evopoint Biosciences, however, has vigorously denied the allegations. In August 2025—following Atom Therapeutics’s initial filing—Evopoint Biosciences filed a counterclaim in the same court, accusing Atom Therapeutics’ of “malicious initiation of intellectual property litigation.” Evopoint Biosciences asserts that Atom Therapeutics’s claims lack factual basis and may be barred by the statute of limitations. According to Evopoint, the true purpose of Atom Therapeutics’s lawsuit is to disrupt Evopoint’s normal business operations and interfere with its IPO process.

Evopoint’s counterclaim demands that Atom Therapeutics and its legal representative, Shi Dongfang, jointly pay RMB 50 million in economic damages and reasonable legal costs, as well as issue a public apology in national media.

The procedural history of the case took a notable turn in November 2025. Atom Therapeutics voluntarily withdrew its original complaint, and within one week, refiled a substantially identical lawsuit on the same grounds. The court accepted the refiled case that same month. Atom Therapeutics explained that the withdrawal and refiling were intended to “facilitate full communication with the court on administrative matters.”

Photo Source: Evopoint Biosciences

Click to read the full article:
https://lnkd.in/eAvfncEC

02/04/2026

David Medical Faces RMB 161 Million Patent Infringement Suit from Cilag

On March 27, Ningbo David Medical Device Co., Ltd. (“David Medical”) disclosed in a public filing that it and its wholly-owned subsidiary, Ningbo Verykind Medical Device Co., Ltd. (“Verykind Medical”), have been named as defendants in a patent infringement lawsuit filed by Cilag AG International (“Cilag”), with total claims reaching more than RMB 161 million.

According to the disclosure, Verykind Medical received litigation documents from the Nanjing Intermediate People’s Court in Jiangsu Province on May 20 and July 7, 2025. Cilag initiated three separate patent infringement actions against the company, asserting that its products infringe three of Cilag’s Chinese invention patents.

The patents-in-suit are: “Motor-Driven Surgical Cutting Instrument with Electric Actuator Directional Control Assembly” (Patent No. 201080059401.4); “Surgical Instrument with Power Control Circuit” (Patent No. 201180057826.6); and “Staple Cartridge for Forming Staples with Different Formed Staple Heights” (Patent No. 200610126469.5).

Cilag alleges that Verykind Medical’s powered endoscopic cutting staplers (D/T/VD/VT series) and associated staple cartridges (including but not limited to D/T/DA/TA/VD/VT/S/G/DM/TM series) fall within the scope of the asserted patents. The plaintiff seeks injunctive relief—an order to cease the manufacture, sale, and offer for sale of the accused products—along with damages, attorney’s fees, and litigation costs.

Initially, Cilag sought RMB 5 million, RMB 5 million, and RMB 1 million in the three cases, respectively. During the course of the proceedings, however, it significantly increased the claim amounts, raising the demands in the first two cases to RMB 80.63 million each—bringing the combined total to RMB 161.26 million. Meanwhile, Cilag voluntarily withdrew the case involving Patent No. 200610126469.5.
Public records from the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) show that Cilag’s withdrawal followed a successful invalidation challenge by Fulbright Medical Inc., another Chinese high-end surgical device manufacturer, on January 19 of this year. CNIPA records indicate that Fulbright Medical filed at least four invalidation petitions against the same patent beginning in 2020, with the CNIPA issuing four decisions. The patent was ultimately declared invalid in its entirety this January, after having been repeatedly upheld in prior rounds.

In response to the substantial claims, David Medical stated in the filing that the asserted amounts are merely the plaintiff’s unilateral demands and do not reflect any final court ruling. The case remains in first-instance proceedings, and the outcome remains uncertain. The company stated it has assembled a professional legal team to vigorously defend its rights.

Photo Source: David Medical

Click to read the full article:
https://lnkd.in/gdbuTABX

30/03/2026

Webinar “Combating Copycat Trademarks in Russia: Proactive Legal Strategies for 2026”

In the evolving Russian IP landscape of 2026, foreign brands face a dual challenge: a surge in sophisticated copycat attempts and “squatting” on visual identities, coupled with a stricter financial environment following the granular Rospatent fee reforms. In line of such backgroud, Gorodissky & Partners will hold a webinar on April 21 exploring how to secure and defend trademarks cost-effectively without compromising protection. The Webinar will analyze the strategic pivot from broad, high-cost filings to targeted pragmatic portfolio strategies, the necessity of monitoring visual similarities, and the latest trends in litigation. Special attention is paid to the intersection of non-use cancellation actions and bad faith, analyzing fresh IP Court practice on “malicious interest” involving major brands.

Topic 1: Pragmatic Filing: “Smart” Registration Under the New Fee Structure

Topic 2: Beyond the Watch Service: Monitoring and Early Intervention

Topic 3: The “Non-Use” Battlefield: Risks and the “Malicious Interest” Defense

Topic 4: Building a Robust Protection Strategy

Speakers:
Sergey Vasiliev, Ph.D., Partner, Head of Legal Department

Alina Grechikhina, Russian Trademark & Design Attorney, Eurasian Design Attorney

For your convenience, 2 online sessions are organized across different time zones.

For IP professionals in Asia

April 21
12:30 p.m. Delhi
4 p.m. Tokyo
3 p.m. Beijing
10 a.m. Moscow

For IP professionals in Europe and America
April 21
10 a.m. New York
4 p.m. Munich
5 p.m. Moscow

Click the link below to register:
https://lnkd.in/ep_EHjJn

26/03/2026

DJI Sues Insta360 Over Patent Ownership Tied to Former Employees

On March 23, SZ DJI Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "DJI") filed a lawsuit against Arashi Vision Inc. , which does business as Insta360, at the Shenzhen Intermediate People's Court. The case involves disputes over the ownership of six patents, with multiple former core R&D personnel from DJI alleged to be involved. The court has docketed the case.

The case reportedly marks DJI's first domestic lawsuit over patent ownership. The patents in question cover key technical fields such as unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) flight control, structural design, and image processing.

In its complaint, DJI argues that the disputed patents were inventions made by former employees within one year after their departure, and are closely related to their work at DJI. Under China's Patent Law, such inventions should be considered service inventions, with patent application rights belonging to DJI.

DJI further noted that for two patents related to UAV flight control and structural design, Insta360's Chinese patent applications listed certain inventors as "requesting name disclosure exemption," while the corresponding Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) applications explicitly stated their true names. DJI claims these individuals are former core R&D personnel who had access to DJI's core technical systems.

In response, Insta360 issued a statement on March 23. The company said the employees involved had left DJI within one year, but the patent applications were independently developed innovations generated during their employment at Insta360, with a legal and compliant R&D process.

Regarding the name disclosure, Insta360 stated it strictly adhered to the inventors' wishes and complied with relevant laws and regulations.
On March 24, Insta360 said the case remains in judicial proceedings and that the final court determination will be respected. The company will continue to focus on product and technology development across gimbal cameras, audio devices, and UAVs.

Liu Jingkang, CEO of Insta360, offered a more direct response on his personal Weibo account.

Liu said the only patent potentially involved in the flight control domain was originally conceived by him, with his deep involvement in its refinement and validation. He described the patent as enabling a "dive flight" effect for UAV operation—executable with a single click, similar to that of a professional first-person view (FPV) UAV.

Photo Source: Ctoy.com.cn
Click to read the full article:
https://www.chinaiptoday.com/post.html?id=2279

25/03/2026

Tatiana Karetina, Lawyer at Gorodissky & Partners shares her perspectives on the "Protection of IP Rights on Russian Marketplaces: Current Practice and Future Outlook".

Russian marketplaces are undergoing a fundamental shift to a strictly regulated digital system, while IP protection on marketplaces is evolving into a more structured framework.

Starting October 2026, Federal Law No. 289-FZ on the Platform Economy comes into force in Russia, which targets large digital platforms and marketplaces.

Marketplaces will no longer be considered as simple bulletin boards. They will be legally classified as Intermediate Digital Platforms. Besides, large platforms will be put on a state registry. Also, they will be legally required to verify sellers identity via the state registry of legal entities, which will help them to eliminate ghost sellers who usually offer counterfeits.

It is moving toward active monitoring where platforms are expected to detect infringing content before a complaint is filed. Major marketplaces will have to run mandatory authenticity checks for every new uploaded listing through the integrated state registries. In particular, ensure that all conformity certificates or declarations are valid and compliant and that the goods are duly registered with the national tracking system 'Chestny Znak' (Honest Sign). If a product requires labeling (e.g. for shoes, clothes, electronics) and lacks a valid code, the platform will block the listing. Marketplaces will be granted the right to block seller accounts immediately if counterfeiting activity is detected without the long notice periods that are now required.
Marketplaces become jointly liable along with the seller. Rights holders are granted the right to submit cease-and-desist letters directly to the marketplace if an IP infringement is revealed. If the marketplace fails to comply, it may become financially liable (up to 10 million rubles (around 127 000 USD). The new law forces marketplaces to act faster when a rights holder reports a violation and be more attentive to such reports.

Click to read the original full article:
https://www.chinaiptoday.com/post.html?id=2278

19/03/2026

's EV Design Patents Face Challenge From an Unexpected Source

Xiaomi's electric vehicle unit is facing a legal challenge over three design patents covering exterior parts of its flagship SU7 and YU7 models, according to documents from the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA).

Shandong Yanlu New Energy Vehicle, a Chinese manufacturer of miniature electric vehicles, has filed invalidation requests against the patents with the CNIPA, the agency's oral hearing notice showed.
The three disputed patents, for a rear bumper (Patent No. 2023300280286), front bumper (Patent No. 2023300278040) and a headlight (Patent No. 2023300276401), were filed by Xiaomi Auto in January 2023 and granted in March 2025. The designs have been applied to the company's two main models, the SU7 and YU7, based on information from Xiaomi's official website and patent documents.
Xiaomi launched its first car, the SU7, in March 2024. This timing created a roughly one-year window between the vehicle's market debut and the formal granting of its design patents in March 2025, meaning potential copycats would not have been able to search and discover that Xiaomi had pending patent protection for these exterior features during that period.

The oral hearing is scheduled for March 26, 2026.

In a proactive move after the patents were granted, Xiaomi requested that CNIPA issue evaluation reports on the patents' validity. Such reports are commonly used in China to demonstrate the stability of design and utility model patents, which are granted without substantive examination.

The evaluation reports, issued in May 2025, confirmed the patents' validity, stating that examiners found no defects that would prevent the granting of patent rights. The designs were deemed sufficiently distinct from existing ones to create a notable overall visual impact on average consumers.

Shandong Yanlu New Energy Vehicle, based in eastern China's Shandong province, specializes in low-speed miniature electric vehicles. Its current product lineup, as shown on its official website, consists primarily of electric tricycles and does not appear to feature designs similar to Xiaomi's disputed patents, raising questions about the motivation behind the challenge.

Photo Source: Xiaomi
Click to visit the China IP website:
https://lnkd.in/g3EgkDKd

13/03/2026

Luweimei's Patent Lawsuits Against 'Malicious', Court Rules

China's Hangzhou Intermediate People's Court has ruled that a small chemical firm engaged in malicious litigation by filing patent lawsuits against robotics company Unitree Robotics, in a case that underscores judicial efforts to combat abusive intellectual property claims during sensitive corporate milestones such as initial public offerings.

The dispute, which unfolded through two related cases filed by Hangzhou Luweimei Daily Chemical Co against Unitree's "Go2" and "A2" robot dog models, concluded in February 2026 with both lawsuits dismissed. Luweimei faced judicial condemnation for violating the principle of good faith and was found to have engaged in malicious litigation.

The case dates back to July 2025, when Luweimei—a company primarily engaged in food and daily chemical sales with no connection to robotics—filed two separate lawsuits against Unitree at the Hangzhou Intermediate People's Court based on the same patent (Patent No. CN106384471). Luweimei alleged that Unitree's Go2 and A2 robot dog models infringed the patent. In the A2 case, Unitree countersued Luweimei for malicious litigation, and the court consolidated the hearings.

On September 26, 2025, the Hangzhou Intermediate People's Court dismissed all claims in the Go2 case, finding that Unitree's products did not fall within the scope of Luweimei's patent protection. Luweimei appealed.

During a November 26, 2025 appellate hearing before the Supreme People's Court, Luweimei dramatically increased its compensation claim from 500 yuan to 80 million yuan. The following day, it reduced the claim back to 500 yuan in a written submission.

On February 3, 2026, the Supreme People's Court upheld the lower court's decision, dismissing Luweimei's appeal. In its ruling, the court stated that Luweimei's conduct was "both meticulously calculated and capricious" and violated the principle of good faith, issuing a formal condemnation.

The very next day, the Hangzhou Intermediate People's Court ruled in the A2 case, dismissing all claims and granting Unitree's countersuit. The court found Luweimei's actions constituted malicious litigation and ordered it to pay Unitree's legal expenses amounting to 80,000 yuan. The case has been dubbed the first major intellectual property malicious litigation case of 2026.

In finding malicious litigation, the Hangzhou court cited several factors:

Photo source: Unitree
Click to read the full article:
https://lnkd.in/g5dATUde

12/03/2026

China Issues New Regulation on Trade Secret Protection

China’s State Administration for Market Regulation (SAMR) has recently promulgated the Regulation on the Protection of Trade Secrets (the "Regulation"). Effective from June 1 this year, the Regulation will replace the Several Provisions on Prohibiting Infringements upon Trade Secrets, which has been in force for over 30 years. Evolving from a 12-article principle-based framework focused on "prohibition of infringement" in 1995 to a meticulously crafted 31-article framework centered on "systematic protection" in 2026, the Regulation not only reshapes the trade secret protection system but also adapts to the developmental needs of the digital economy. It introduces groundbreaking provisions concerning the protected subject matter, infringement determination, confidentiality measures, and lawful defenses.

A translation by China IP is available for ease of reference:
https://lnkd.in/gfDWxKV9

09/03/2026

Vladimir Biriulin: Expanding Horizons of Cooperation in Intellectual Property

On January 24–25, the 2026 Enterprise IP Strategy Forum & Annual Conference of In-house IP Managers was held at the Beijing International Hotel. Under the theme "Consolidate & Elevate: Innovate to Cultivate the New," the event brought together industry leaders, experts, and premier institutions. It offered attendees three core benefits: trend insights, resource matchmaking, and capacity building — positioning itself as a vital platform for seizing industrial upgrading opportunities. A total of 420 guests from various sectors gathered to witness the forum's highlights.

During the main session, the "Enterprise IP Strategy Development Forum," Vladimir Biriulin, Partner at Law Firm Gorodissky & Partners, delivered a keynote speech. The editorial team of Intellectual Property Observers has curated and transcribed his remarks for our readers:

It is a great honor to speak before such a distinguished audience. Today, I will focus on how Chinese companies can better navigate business operations in Russia while avoiding risks such as IP infringement.

Click to read the full keynote speech:
https://lnkd.in/ga5PrZSh

09/02/2026

‘Green Light for Growth’ at the Annual Conference 2026
Early Bird Registration is Open!

Dublin, one of Europe’s leading tech hubs, is ECTA’s next destination. Join us for the 44th Annual Conference ‘Green Light for Growth’ on 17-20 June 2026 for three immersive days dedicated to intellectual property, with a strong focus on how technology and innovation are impacting the IP landscape. And, of course, plenty of networking in the ECTA Family bubble!

Why Dublin?
Today, Dublin is a dynamic European capital, a global hub of innovation and entrepreneurship. The city’s docklands – once filled with ships – now host the European headquarters of major tech giants and trailblazing Irish firms. Its universities, research centres, and creative industries drive Dublin’s reputation as a city of ideas and progress.

Visitors will find a city alive with culture and warmth. Literary legends like Joyce and Yeats continue to inspire, while traditional music sessions spill from historic pubs. A cosmopolitan dining scene and buzzing nightlife reflect the city’s modern edge.

Delegates at ECTA 2026 will experience first-hand why Ireland is a place where heritage meets innovation – and where bold ideas find green lights to grow.

–Local Organising Committee

What’s on the agenda?
Wednesday, 17 June - Committee Meetings, Mock Mediation, Keynote and Welcome Reception

Thursday, 18 June - Educational Immersion and Cheers!

Friday, 19 June - Learning Boost and Gala Dinner

Not an ECTA Member yet?
Apply for membership and attend the Conference at a discounted member rate!
For more information, send an email to ecta@ecta.org

For more details, click to read the original:
https://lnkd.in/gQgVFVKZ

China IP

10/04/2026

08/04/2026

03/04/2026

02/04/2026

30/03/2026

26/03/2026

25/03/2026

19/03/2026

13/03/2026

12/03/2026

09/03/2026

09/02/2026

Address

Telephone

Website

Alerts

Contact The Practice

Shortcuts

Share