China's Supreme People's Court Penalises Malicious Patent Suits Timed Against a Robot Maker's IPO

By Haedar

Photo: OpenRoadPR / Pixabay

The Intellectual Property Court of China's Supreme People's Court (SPC) has published a judgment that shows how Chinese courts deal with patent suits used as pressure tactics. In case (2026) SPC IP Civil Final No. 96, decided on 24 April 2026 and released in English on 8 October, the court upheld a finding that a patentee had brought malicious litigation against a robotics company and ordered it to pay RMB 80,000 in damages.

The court's publication redacts the parties' names. The patentee, a company set up in 2005 to sell food and household goods, had nothing to do with robotics. On 25 June 2025 it acquired from an affiliate a Chinese invention patent titled "An Electronic Dog". Five days later it sued the defendant, a technology company that makes robotic dogs and humanoid robots, in the Hangzhou Intermediate People's Court over its Go2 robotic dog. Media began reporting the defendant's IPO counselling filing in mid-July 2025, and in September 2025 the patentee sued again over a second model, the A2.

Both claims failed. Claim 1 of the patent required features such as bionic fur, a gas sensor and a liquid level sensor, and the accused robots had nothing identical or equivalent. In the Go2 case, the patentee claimed RMB 500, switched to RMB 80 million on appeal and then back to RMB 500 a day later. The SPC criticised this in its February 2026 judgment.

In the A2 case, the defendant counterclaimed for malicious litigation. The SPC said courts should look at four questions: whether the suit clearly lacked a basis in rights or facts, whether the right holder knew this and was at fault, whether damage was caused, and whether the litigation caused it. Timing, the claims made and litigation strategy also count. Here the patentee never produced samples of the accused products, although they were on public sale, kept pursuing the second suit after an effective judgment had found no infringement in the first, and timed its suits to the IPO process, which forced the defendant to disclose litigation risks to regulators and investors. The court treated RMB 80,000 as a modest, symbolic sum and awarded it in full.

For foreign companies defending patent claims in China, the case confirms that a counterclaim for malicious litigation is available, and that a patentee's conduct across a series of suits can be assessed together.

Sources

• TechNode, "China's top court finds patent lawsuits against Unitree Robotics malicious" (30 July 2026), citing Xinhua
• Intellectual Property Court of the Supreme People's Court, "Determination of Malicious Institution of Intellectual Property Litigation: Pursuing Infringement in the Name of 'Rights Protection' Only Leads to Self-Inflicted Consequences, (2026) SPC IP Civil Final 96" (English, 8 October 2026; the court notes the translation is AI-generated and for reference only)