Comprehensive report on China Intellectual Property. Visit us at www.chinaiptoday.com Contact: chinaip@chinaiptoday.cn 《中国知识产权》杂志，一本深刻解读中国知识产权行业变革的精英杂志。自2004年创办以来，一直努力实现知识产权理念与价值在全球范围内的高效传播。经过十余年发展，现已成为以中文、英文杂志为核心，集报纸、名录、网站、电子杂志、电子周刊、微信、微博、会议论坛及调查研究为一体，兼具综合性、实务性、互动性的世界级知识产权专业媒体与服务平台。 China Intellectual Property Magazine (China IP Magazine) is a magazine comprehensively reporting developments of Chinese IP industry and serving IP professionals in enterprises. Since its establishment in 2004, China IP Magazine has been devoting itself to efficiently disseminating the philosophy and value of IP globally. To date, with the core products of the Chinese and English magazines, our products range from International IP Law Firms directory to newspapers, websites, e-magazines, IP weekly, Wechat, Weibo, conferences and forums, researches and surveys, etc.

Unitree Faces Patent Lawsuit from Micro-Enterprise amid IPO Push A patent infringement lawsuit against Hangzhou-based robotics company Unitree Robotics has attracted significant attention in China's technology and legal sectors, particularly as the company is in the process of preparing for its initial public offering (IPO). The case was heard by the Hangzhou Intermediate People's Court on August 26. The plaintiff, Hangzhou Luweimei Daily Chemical Co., Ltd., a small-scale retailer with only two employees as of 2024, has accused Unitree of infringing on an invention patent related to an “electronic dog.” The case is significant, both because of the stark contrast between the two parties and the timing—just weeks after Unitree entered IPO counseling in July. Unitree Robotics, founded in 2016, is a well-known developer of quadruped and humanoid robots. The company’s products are widely used in education, inspection, and rescue, with customers including top universities and state-owned enterprises. In 2024, it sold over 23,000 quadruped robots, holding nearly 70% of the global market. Its best-selling model, Unitree Go1, has shipped over 50,000 units. Luweimei Daily Chemical, by contrast, is a little-known micro-enterprise with traditional retail operations. Its registered capital is only RMB 550,000. Despite the lack of connection to robotics, the company is now the owner of a patent that is central to the lawsuit. The patent in question, titled "An Electronic Dog," was originally filed in 2016 by Zhejiang Jianlin Electronic & Electrical Co., Ltd. (Jianlin Electric), a company controlled by Zhou Jianjun—who also controls Luweimei. The patent describes a quadruped robot equipped with sensors, cameras, and wireless communication capabilities that allow users to remotely monitor their homes and receive intrusion alerts. The system also includes biometric recognition through gas sensors and personalized user responses. Ownership of the patent was transferred twice in 2025—first in February from Zhejiang Jianlin Electronic & Electrical Co., Ltd. to Hangzhou Lianhao Technology Trading Co., Ltd., and then in July to its current owner, Luweimei. Despite the multiple transfers, the companies involved are closely connected: Jianlin Electric and Luweimei share the same legal representative, Zhou Jianjun, and operate out of adjacent offices in Hangzhou. Zhou Jianjun has a history of engaging in intellectual property lawsuits. Jianlin Electric has been involved in 49 court cases, acting as plaintiff in more than 90% of them—many involving patent or software copyright disputes. Targets have included over 20 banks such as China Construction Bank. The case highlights concerns about “patent ambush”—a strategy in which patents are used to pressure companies at sensitive moments, such as IPOs, in hopes of securing out-of-court settlements. View the full article: https://lnkd.in/gjJxB5re Photo: Unitree

China's First Metaverse Trademark Ruling: Virtual Car Deemed Infringement, 1 Million RMB Awarded On July 21, 2025, the Hangzhou Intermediate People's Court issued a landmark second-instance decision in a trademark infringement and unfair competition case involving the "G. Patton" brand, reversing the initial ruling. The court found the defendants—Shanghai G-Peak Industrial Co., Ltd. and its affiliates—liable for both trademark infringement and unfair competition, ordering them to pay 1 million RMB in compensation. This case represents a legal milestone as the first to recognize virtual items in a game as products similar to their real-world counterparts. The court ruled that by authorizing a third party (Tencent) to incorporate a virtual "G. Patton" car into the game Game for Peace—which closely resembled the actual G. Patton vehicle—the defendants had committed trademark infringement, as the virtual and physical cars were deemed similar products. Xuanwo Company, owner of the "G. Patton" trademark, claimed that the defendants collaborated with Tencent to promote the brand in the game by embedding the virtual car and using related trademarks in marketing campaigns. The central question was whether this constituted infringement. In its reasoning, the court acknowledged that virtual cars and real vehicles fall under different trademark categories—Class 12 covers physical automobiles, not digital representations. However, it emphasized that for trademarks with commercial recognition, assessing product similarity requires a nuanced evaluation of their relationship. In this case, although the virtual car differed from its real-world counterpart in function, usage, production, sales channels, and target consumers, the court identified meaningful overlaps: Function and usage: The in-game vehicle allows players to travel quickly or participate in races, mirroring the real car's transport function. Its detailed design—replicating the appearance, interior, and even engine sounds of the physical model—created a strong visual association. Sales channels and target consumers: While real cars target buyers through dealerships, the virtual version targets gamers. However, the court noted that gamers' exposure to the virtual brand could spark interest in the actual product, creating consumer overlap. Public perception: The defendants licensed detailed vehicle attributes—name, logo, design, and engine sounds—for use in Game for Peace, where the virtual car replicated both the appearance and transport function of its physical counterpart. Promotional materials reinforced this connection by labelling the game as "officially licensed," claiming to "accurately recreate" the real vehicle, and grouping G. Patton with luxury brands like Maserati and Tesla. To view the full article: https://lnkd.in/g-ZWg7XG Photo: http://us-g-patton.cn/

How Can Intellectual Property Become an Asset for Financing?A Dialogue with Inngot CEO Mr. Martin Brassell In 2008, China's State Council issued Outline of the National Intellectual Property Strategy, which explicitly stated that "Independent innovation is encouraged to acquire IPRs and be commercialized and industrialized, and enterprises are guided to realize the market value of their IPRs through rights transferring, licensing, pledging or other means. [1]" Since the implementation of the 14th Five-Year Plan, China has witnessed rapid growth in IP financing: in 2023, China's patent and trademark pledge financing reached CNY 853.99 billion, a year-on-year increase of 75.4% [2], benefiting 37,000 enterprises; in 2024, banking institutions in China issued a cumulative total of CNY 255.57 billion in IP-backed loans, marking a 33.4% year-on-year growth [3]. However, at the practical level, IP financing still faces prominent challenges in the valuation and disposal of IP assets, as well as information asymmetry. These issues are common across the industry, relevant practices are only advancing in continuous exploration. Against this backdrop, Intellectual Property Observers was honored to invite Mr. Martin Brassell, Co-founder and CEO of Inngot, to engage in an in-depth discussion on IP financing and intangible asset valuation during the 14th Business of IP Asia Forum. In the process, Mr. Brassell not only provided practical advice for enterprises on IP financing, but also analyzed the similarities and differences in policy design across different countries from an international and comparative perspective, offering professional insights into global IP financing trends. As a recognized authority in the field, Mr. Martin Brassell has dedicated over 15 years to IP financing, specializing in asset identification and valuation, and is committed to enhancing enterprise value. He has been deeply involved in policy research and development, and has authored a number of influential research reports for the UK Intellectual Property Office (UK IPO), the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore (IPOS), the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), playing a key role in advancing the financialization of IP globally. To view the detailed dialogue: https://lnkd.in/gz7qPVSm

Striking IP Gold in the Russia–Eurasia Market: A Comprehensive Guide to IP Protection Strategies | Gorodissky & Partners Exclusive Session (Beijing) As China–Russia trade surpasses USD 240 billion in 2024, and the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) emerges as China's fifth-largest trading partner, opportunities across the emerging Russian-speaking markets are growing rapidly. However, alongside this growth comes a complex web of intellectual property (IP) risks. To help Chinese enterprises navigate this evolving landscape, Gorodissky & Partners, a leading international IP law firm, will host a specialized seminar on Friday, September 19, 2025, from 14:00 to 18:00, at Kerry Hotel, Beijing. This exclusive event will address the key legal and practical challenges faced by Chinese companies in the region. A senior-partner team from the firm's Moscow headquarters will offer in-depth insights, drawn from decades of experience, to support Chinese IP professionals and corporate decision-makers in developing forward-looking strategies. What to expect: ◉ Patent prosecution ◉ Gaps in industrial design protection ◉ Trademark squatting countermeasures ◉ Disputes over the validity of technology licensing agreements ◉ Cross-border enforcement and litigation strategies Who should attend： ◉ IP Directors and Legal Counsels at companies entering or operating in Russia, Kazakhstan, Belarus, and other Russian-speaking markets ◉ Heads of international practice at IP law firms and agencies ◉ Legal teams from cross-border e-commerce, energy equipment, and high-tech sectors Event details: Date: Friday, September 19, 2025 Time: 14:00–18:00 Venue: Kowloon ballroom1, 4th Floor, Kerry Hotel, Beijing (1 Guanghua Road, Chaoyang District) Fee: Free of charge (limited seats; registration subject to approval) Language: English (Simultaneous interpretation in Mandarin provided) Contact: jane.jiang@chinaiptoday.cn +86 18911449529(WeChat available) View the full article to register: https://lnkd.in/gBK_NpNk

Beijing E-Town Sues Applied Materials for Trade Secret Theft Beijing E-Town Semiconductor Technologies announced on Wednesday that it has filed a lawsuit against U.S.-based Applied Materials, Inc., accusing the company of illegally obtaining and using its core trade secrets related to plasma sources and wafer surface treatment technologies. The Chinese semiconductor equipment maker claims in its lawsuit filed at the Beijing Intellectual Property Court that Applied Materials improperly acquired these trade secrets and subsequently disclosed them by filing a patent application in China, seeking 99.99 million yuan in compensation for the alleged infringement. The disputed technology involves the use of high-concentration, stable, and uniform plasma for wafer surface treatment, which Beijing E-Town describes as critical to its semiconductor equipment, including devices for dry photoresist removal, dry etching, and surface modification. The company asserts that it holds exclusive trade secrets in this field and that Applied Materials' actions have caused significant commercial harm. The lawsuit centers on two former employees of Mattson Technology, Inc. (MTI), a wholly owned subsidiary of Beijing E-Town, who later joined Applied Materials. These individuals had access to sensitive technical information and had signed confidentiality agreements during their tenure at MTI. Evidence suggests that after moving to Applied Materials, they filed a patent application with the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) that allegedly disclosed trade secrets jointly owned by Beijing E-Town and MTI. Beijing E-Town alleges that Applied Materials violated China’s Anti-Unfair Competition Law by unlawfully acquiring and using its proprietary technology, then incorporating it into products sold to Chinese customers. The company is requesting that the court order Applied Materials to cease infringement, destroy confidential materials, and stop further disclosure of the trade secrets. In addition, Beijing E-Town seeks legal recognition of its ownership of the disputed patent rights and financial compensation totaling 99.99 million yuan, which includes triple punitive damages. Founded in 2015, Beijing E-Town Semiconductor Technologies specializes in developing and manufacturing wafer processing equipment for integrated circuit production. It is one of the few Chinese companies capable of producing a wide range of semiconductor equipment and claims to be the only domestic firm with internationally leading technology in both plasma and wafer thermal processing. The company went public on the Shanghai Stock Exchange’s STAR Market in July 2025, with a market capitalization of approximately 67.623 billion yuan. View the full article: https://lnkd.in/gWH634tJ Photo Source: Communications Today

14 #Huawei Ex-employees Sentenced for Stealing Chip Secrets to Launch Rival Startup, Zunpai Fourteen former Huawei employees have been sentenced and fined for stealing proprietary chip technology and using it to establish a rival company, Zunpai Communications. The Shanghai Third Intermediate People’s Court issued its ruling on July 28, resulting in a total fine of 13.5 million yuan and prison sentences for the defendants. The primary defendant, Zhang Kun, a former executive at Huawei’s chip subsidiary HiSilicon, received a six-year prison term and a 3-million-yuan fine. The other 13 defendants were sentenced to prison terms ranging from one to five years, with fines between 200,000 and 1.5 million yuan. Five will serve immediate jail time, while the remaining received suspended sentences. Police investigation revealed that after leaving Huawei, Zhang Kun and his associates founded Zunpai Communications in early 2021 in Nanjing. The group lured former Huawei R&D employees to join the new company with promises of high salaries and equity shares. Before their resignation, the employees were instructed to steal sensitive chip technology from Huawei using methods such as copying files and taking screenshots. The stolen technology was then used in the design of Zunpai's chips, allowing the company to benefit from Huawei’s intellectual property. An expert evaluation confirmed that 40 key technical points in the infringing chips were over 90% identical to Huawei's proprietary technology, constituting a substantial violation. This led to significant losses for Huawei, with damages calculated based on both the stolen technology’s development costs and its estimated market value. The case also saw the Chinese government take swift action. In December 2023, Shanghai police arrested the 14 individuals involved in the theft. At the same time, authorities froze 95 million yuan worth of Zunpai’s assets. Founded in 2021 and headquartered in Nanjing, Zunpai Communications specializes in semiconductor chips for smart home and business applications, particularly Wi-Fi 6 router chips. Between 2021 and 2023, the company secured multiple funding rounds from prominent investors. Xiaomi also participated in the financing but later clarified its involvement was purely financial, with no technical or managerial ties to Zunpai. View the full article: https://lnkd.in/gbV4Pbqz Photo Source: leiphone

Rongta Technology hit with 200 million RMB trade secret lawsuit Rongta Technology is facing a 200 million RMB trade secret lawsuit from its rival, Pinnacle Technology, according to a statement released by Rongta last month. The lawsuit, filed with the Xiamen Intermediate People's Court, accuses Rongta and one of its former employees, Mr. A, of misappropriating Pinnacle's trade secrets. Pinnacle is seeking a court order to halt Rongta's actions infringing on its trade secrets, as well as to stop the development, production, and sale of the accused infringing weighing products. In addition, Pinnacle demands compensation for the infringement and related litigation costs, with claims totaling approximately 200 million RMB. At the heart of the dispute is Mr. A, a former employee of Rongta. In August 2020, Mr. A was arrested by Xiamen Public Security Bureau for allegedly stealing trade secrets. A year later, Pinnacle filed a criminal lawsuit at the People's Court of Siming District in Xiamen, with a civil claim attached, against Mr. A and Rongta, accusing them of trade secret infringement. Pinnacle alleged that Mr. A misappropriated its trade secrets and used the disputed software in four of Rongta's weighing products, which were launched around September 2015. Pinnacle also claimed that Rongta knew or should have known about Mr. A's actions. In August 2022, the People's Court of Siming District in Xiamen ruled in favor of Pinnacle, confirming that Mr. A had infringed on its trade secrets. However, Rongta appealed the decision, and the Xiamen Intermediate People's Court overturned the ruling, remanding the case for a retrial. In November 2023, the Siming District People's Court rejected all of Pinnacle's claims during the retrial, on the grounds that Pinnacle's claims were not based on infringement of personal rights or loss due to property damage, and therefore should not be brought as a civil lawsuit attached to criminal proceedings. Pinnacle filed an appeal, but in April 2024, the Xiamen Intermediate People's Court upheld the retrial judgment, dismissing the claims. Now, Pinnacle has escalated the dispute by filing a civil lawsuit against Rongta, reigniting the legal battle. In response, Rongta firmly denied the accusations. The company emphasized that it was only made aware of Mr. A's actions when he was arrested and that his employment ended in January 2021. Furthermore, the disputed products were discontinued from sale in August 2020. Rongta views this civil lawsuit as similar in nature to the previous case, in which all of the Pinnacle's claims were dismissed in the past retrial and appeal decisions. The company does not anticipate that this new lawsuit will significantly impact its business, financial status, or operations. View the full article: https://lnkd.in/gqyrddwE Photo source: Rongta Technology

Dialogue with #INTA CEO: 2026-2029 Strategic Plan On July 17, Etienne Sanz de Acedo, CEO of the International Trademark Association (INTA), held his first collective meeting with nearly 20 leading Chinese media outlets in Beijing. This historic exchange not only demonstrated INTA's strong commitment to the Chinese market but also marked the beginning of a new chapter in its collaboration with Chinese media. Together, they explored the future development and trends of global intellectual property. During the media exchange, Intellectual Property Observers(China IP) engaged in a discussion with Etienne about the association's 2026-2029 strategic plan. Here's a transcript of the conversation. Intellectual Property Observers(China IP) : Hello Etienne，I am Jane from Intellectual Property Observers(China IP). My question is the2026~2029 strategic plan expands INTA，terminology from brands to intellectual property with clear coverage of nontraditional trademark fields，such as copyrights and trade secrets Does this positioning or adjustment suggests that INTA will reduce resource allocation priority to trademark protection? Thank you. Mr. Etienne Sanz de Acedo: Very good observation. In fact，if we go even back by name were international trademark association. And in the past and if you look at the Strategic Plan of，let's say，8 or 12 years ago，it was all about trademarks. Now we did a conscious transition from trademarks to brands to precisely embrace the change within companies to talk about the commercial side of IP and over the years，we've performed a global expansion，but also substantive expansion where we've been covering trademarks，designs，copyrights，data privacy，right of publicity，trade secrets more or less recently. And as now we're looking into IP in a more holistic way，that means that we will be covering as well and we will be looking into patents. Now I always say that our landing into patents is gonna be soft and steady，which means we want to take the time to reflect well on what should be our role. In the patent ecosphere，we want to start by educating our own members by raising awareness. But from there，we'll continue developing our activities. Now the second part of your question will that reduce the allocation to trademark issues? Not at all. I think what INTA has proven over the years is that we have the capacity of continue expanding. That's thanks to our members. We should not forget that we're a global trade association，we're a global not-for-profit organization，but we're members organization and that means that our members as volunteers contribute to the work of the organization. Thanks to them. We can do as much as we do. Photo: Mr. Etienne Sanz de Acedo View the full article: https://lnkd.in/gPrpNBU5

Licensing and technology transfers in Russia @ Sergey Medvedev, PhD, LLM , and Senior Partner of @ IP Law Firm Gorodissky & Partners and Valery Narezhniy, Counsel of Gorodissky & Partners share their insights on licensing and technology transfers in Russia. To view the full article: https://lnkd.in/gU8FRafU

#Luckin Coffee Wins 5 Million Yuan in Trademark Case Against "LUCKY CAT COFFEE" Infringer Luckin Coffee(瑞幸咖啡) has secured a significant victory in a trademark infringement case, with the Futian District People's Court in Shenzhen awarding the company 5 million yuan in compensation, as per a judgement released on July 21. The case involved Hangzhou Reliu Brand Operation Management Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "Hangzhou Reliu Company"), which operated under the "LUCKY CAT COFFEE(幸猫咖啡)" brand, and was accused of imitating Luckin Coffee's trademarks. Founded in 2017, Luckin Coffee has rapidly expanded, reaching 24,032 stores according to its Q1 2025 financial report. With strong brand recognition, the company is a major player in China's coffee shop market. Hangzhou Reliu Company, established in December 2020, registered the "LUCKY CAT COFFEE" trademark in 2022. The company operated 86 franchise stores nationwide, using branding closely resembling that of Luckin Coffee, including identical logos on coffee cups, paper bags, and staff uniforms. This led Luckin Coffee to file a lawsuit in 2023, demanding that Hangzhou Reliu Company stop the infringement, make a public statement to remove the effects, and pay 5 million yuan in damages. In a judgement dated on July 29, 2024, the Futian District People's Court in Shenzhen ruled that the two trademarks were highly similar in appearance, color, and visual effect. Given the widespread recognition of Luckin Coffee's brand, the court concluded that the similarity of the trademarks across various platforms—storefront signs, coffee cups, and uniforms—created a significant risk of consumer confusion. The court determined that Hangzhou Reliu Company had willfully infringed upon Luckin Coffee's exclusive trademark rights. Despite knowing the high market recognition of Luckin Coffee, Hangzhou Reliu Company had used a similar logo to engage in comprehensive imitation with clear malicious intent. The company had profited greatly by charging millions of yuan in franchise fees, making the infringement particularly severe. Additionally, during the trial, the court instructed Hangzhou Reliu Company to provide evidence related to its franchise fees. However, the company failed to comply, obstructing the evidence-gathering process. Based on the evidence submitted by Luckin Coffee, the court calculated that Hangzhou Reliu Company had earned at least 1.72 million yuan in franchise fees and imposed double punitive damages. The court ultimately set the compensation at 5.16 million yuan, fully supporting Luckin Coffee’s claim for 5 million yuan in economic losses and reasonable expenses. Photo Source: Luckin Coffee View the full article: https://lnkd.in/g_YUa376