Patent malicious litigation "碰瓷" IPO case —— The case of Luweimei Company suing Yushu Technology for

Case Overview (Latest Final Judgment Case in 2026)

Hangzhou Unitree Technology (a robotics company) was in the crucial stage of its IPO preparation when it was sued for patent infringement by Luweimei, a daily chemical company with no connection to the field. Luweimei filed the lawsuit only five days after acquiring the patent in question, initially seeking 500 yuan in damages in the first instance, then demanding 80 million yuan in damages in the second instance, before reverting to 500 yuan the following day – a huge discrepancy in the amount sought. Ultimately, the Supreme People's Court rejected all of Luweimei's appeals, finding its infringement claims lacking basis and clarifying that its actions constituted malicious patent litigation, severely condemning its abuse of litigation rights. It is understood that such malicious patent litigation targeting companies in their critical IPO period is not an isolated case; Lingge Technology also encountered similar malicious litigation during its transfer to the Beijing Stock Exchange, leading to the suspension of its listing process.

Guowang Intellectual Property Industry Stance Analysis

This case serves as a prime example of the judiciary's crackdown on malicious patent litigation in 2026, and a crucial warning regarding intellectual property risk prevention during the IPO process for science and technology innovation enterprises. As an agency specializing in full-chain intellectual property services, we are acutely aware that science and technology innovation enterprises have become frequent targets of malicious patent litigation during critical periods of capital operations such as IPOs. The core purpose of such lawsuits is not legitimate rights protection, but rather to exploit the company's "zero tolerance" for litigation risks to delay the listing process, demand exorbitant settlement fees, or suppress competitors. We advise companies planning to go public to proactively conduct intellectual property compliance reviews, comprehensively assess the stability of patents and other intellectual property rights, and establish an IPO intellectual property risk early warning mechanism. Furthermore, in the event of malicious litigation, companies must decisively engage professional institutions and lawyers to accurately collect evidence of the opposing party's malicious intent and rely on judicial rules to protect their legitimate rights and interests, avoiding missing out on listing opportunities due to malicious litigation. Our company can provide specialized intellectual property legal counsel services to companies planning to go public, covering the entire process from rights stability assessment and risk warning to litigation response, safeguarding their IPO journey.

Professional commentary from industry lawyers

Intellectual Property Attorney Liu Fenglong: From a legal perspective, this case clarifies the three judicial standards for determining malicious patent litigation, providing clear guidance for judicial practice:

First, the stability of the right basis is the primary premise. Luweimei Company used the patent for litigation in a short period of time after acquiring it, and the stability of the patent right is questionable, which violates the original intention of intellectual property rights protection.

Secondly, the core element is whether the purpose of the lawsuit is legitimate. The plaintiff precisely chose to file a lawsuit at a key point in the company's IPO, and the amount of compensation sought was seriously inconsistent with the actual scale of the infringement, highlighting the illegitimacy of its purpose in filing the lawsuit.

Third, whether the behavior is characterized by persistent malice is an important supplement. Such malicious litigants often engage in repeated lawsuits and targeted suppression of competitors.

From the perspective of enterprise response, science and technology innovation enterprises need to focus on three key points:

First, we should make advance preparations for patent layout and rights consolidation, and conduct regular patent validity checks to avoid giving malicious litigants an opportunity due to weak rights foundation;

Secondly, when faced with malicious litigation, do not blindly compromise. Instead, promptly gather evidence of the other party's malicious litigation (such as patent transfer within a short period of time, abnormal claim amounts, lack of actual infringement, etc.) and actively raise defenses.

Third, by leveraging the expertise of professional lawyers, legal rules can be applied precisely, requiring courts to issue negative assessments of malicious litigation and even pursue civil liability for damages.

In this case, Unitree Robotics' victory demonstrates the judiciary's strict regulation of malicious litigation and serves as a reminder to enterprises that intellectual property protection is not only about establishing rights, but also about doing a good job in risk prevention and litigation response, and safeguarding the legal boundaries of innovation and development.