China IP Litigation: Supreme People’s Court Affirms Finding of Malicious Patent Litigation in Robotic Dog Dispute
Published 14 May 2026
Yu Du
On 12 May 2026, the Intellectual Property Tribunal of the Supreme People’s Court released the judgment in case (2026) No. 96, affirming a first-instance decision that not only rejected a patent infringement claim concerning quadruped robotic dogs, but also held that the patentee’s enforcement action constituted malicious litigation.
The case is notable for the court’s detailed discussion of abusive patent enforcement, evidentiary standards in patent infringement actions, and the misuse of intellectual property litigation during a company’s IPO process.
Background of the Dispute
The appellant, a Hangzhou-based daily chemical company (“Plaintiff”), filed a patent infringement action against a robotics technology company (“Defendant”) concerning the Defendant’s “A2” robotic dog product. The Plaintiff asserted infringement of Chinese invention patent No. 201610396363.0 titled “An Electronic Dog”.
The patent, originally filed on 7 June 2016 and granted on 17 August 2018, claimed a biomimetic robotic dog integrating environmental sensing, intelligent interaction, and security monitoring functions.
On 19 September 2025, the Plaintiff initiated the first-instance proceedings before the Hangzhou Intermediate People’s Court, seeking:
immediate cessation of manufacture, sale, and offering for sale of the accused A2 robotic dog; destruction of inventory and production molds; cessation of promotional activities; damages and legal expenses; and publication of a public statement to eliminate adverse effects.
The Plaintiff alleged that the A2 robotic dog incorporated all technical features of the asserted claims, including biomimetic structures, drive systems, sensors, and intelligent interaction functionalities.
The Defendant denied infringement and filed a counterclaim seeking compensation for losses caused by malicious intellectual property litigation, including attorneys’ fees incurred in defending the case.
First-Instance Judgment
On 4 February 2026, the Hangzhou Intermediate People’s Court rendered its first-instance judgment in the present case.
1. Non-Infringement Finding
The court held that the accused A2 robotic dog did not fall within the scope of the asserted patent claims because it lacked multiple mandatory claim limitations.
The court emphasized that all technical features recited in a patent claim must be considered in determining infringement under the “all-elements rule”. The court expressly stated that “all technical features in the asserted claims must be taken into account when determining the scope of patent protection”. Specifically, the court found that the A2 product lacked:
the “color-changing biomimetic fur” feature; liquid level sensors; gas sensors; smoke and temperature sensors; infrared signal transmission modules; and other claim limitations.
The Plaintiff attempted to argue that industrial laser radar systems used in the accused product were equivalent to the claimed gas sensors and environmental monitoring features. The court rejected this argument, finding that the lidar system and the patented sensors addressed “different technical problems”, and differed in “structure, function, and technical effect”.
The court further rejected the Plaintiff’s argument that certain limitations were “non-essential” technical features, reiterating that a patentee cannot selectively disregard claim limitations during infringement analysis.
2. Finding of Malicious Litigation
More significantly, the first-instance court concluded that:
“The Plaintiff interfered with and adversely affected the Defendant’s normal business operations through litigation in order to obtain improper benefits, thereby violating the purpose and spirit of the intellectual property legal system. Such conduct constituted an abuse of rights and amounted to malicious litigation.”
The court also considered the Plaintiff’s prior enforcement history. In an earlier lawsuit filed on 1 July 2025 concerning the Defendant’s “Go2” robotic dog product, both the Hangzhou Intermediate People’s Court and, on appeal, the Supreme People’s Court had already determined that the accused product did not fall within the protection scope of the asserted patent claims. In the related appellate judgment, the SPC criticized the Plaintiff’s litigation conduct as being “both carefully calculated and repeatedly inconsistent”, observing that the Plaintiff appeared intent on minimizing litigation costs while simultaneously exerting litigation pressure on the opposing party. Despite those earlier findings, the Plaintiff subsequently initiated the present action concerning another robotic dog model based on substantially similar infringement theories.
The court relied on several factors:
1) Failure to obtain and submit physical products
Although the accused products were publicly available for purchase, the Plaintiff relied only on screenshots, manuals, promotional videos, and technical documents rather than purchasing and examining actual products.
2) Repeated lawsuits despite prior adverse findings
The Plaintiff filed substantially similar infringement actions against different robotic dog models after the courts had already found no infringement in the earlier Go2 litigation.
3) Nominal damages claims inconsistent with alleged large-scale infringement
The Plaintiff alleged massive infringement and severe damages, yet sought only RMB 1,500 while simultaneously reserving the right to later seek audited damages. The court regarded this strategy as designed to minimize litigation costs while exerting pressure on the Defendant.
4) Timing during the Defendant’s IPO process
The court noted that the lawsuits were filed while the Defendant was undergoing IPO counseling and preparation, and specifically found that the Plaintiff sought to “exert adverse influence” on the Defendant during its IPO process through the patent litigation.
Accordingly, the court dismissed all infringement claims and ordered the Plaintiff to compensate the Defendant RMB 80,000 for attorneys’ fees incurred in responding to the malicious litigation.
Supreme People’s Court Decision
The Plaintiff appealed the first-instance judgment. The SPC docketed the appeal on 25 February 2026 and held a public hearing on 15 April 2026, and rendered its final judgment on 24 April 2026.
During the second-instance proceedings, another significant development occurred: on 12 March 2026, the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) issued Decision No. 630074 declaring all claims of the asserted patent invalid for lack of inventiveness.
Although the Plaintiff challenged the invalidation decision in separate administrative proceedings, the SPC nevertheless affirmed the first-instance judgment in full.
The SPC agreed that:
the accused A2 robotic dog did not contain multiple required technical features of the patent claims; the Plaintiff’s equivalence arguments lacked technical and legal basis; the Plaintiff had failed to provide adequate infringement evidence; and the litigation conduct constituted abuse of rights and malicious litigation.
Comment
The decision reflects the SPC’s continued strict application of the all-elements rule and its cautious approach toward equivalence arguments involving fundamentally different technologies. It also highlights the importance of reasonable pre-suit investigation, including examination of actual accused products where available.
Most notably, the SPC signaled that intellectual property litigation should not be used primarily as a strategic tool to exert commercial pressure or interfere with financing and IPO activities. For companies in emerging sectors such as robotics and AI hardware, the decision provides reassurance that Chinese courts are prepared both to protect legitimate patent rights and to sanction abusive patent assertions.
The case is notable for the court’s detailed discussion of abusive patent enforcement, evidentiary standards in patent infringement actions, and the misuse of intellectual property litigation during a company’s IPO process.
Background of the Dispute
The appellant, a Hangzhou-based daily chemical company (“Plaintiff”), filed a patent infringement action against a robotics technology company (“Defendant”) concerning the Defendant’s “A2” robotic dog product. The Plaintiff asserted infringement of Chinese invention patent No. 201610396363.0 titled “An Electronic Dog”.
The patent, originally filed on 7 June 2016 and granted on 17 August 2018, claimed a biomimetic robotic dog integrating environmental sensing, intelligent interaction, and security monitoring functions.
On 19 September 2025, the Plaintiff initiated the first-instance proceedings before the Hangzhou Intermediate People’s Court, seeking:
immediate cessation of manufacture, sale, and offering for sale of the accused A2 robotic dog; destruction of inventory and production molds; cessation of promotional activities; damages and legal expenses; and publication of a public statement to eliminate adverse effects.
The Plaintiff alleged that the A2 robotic dog incorporated all technical features of the asserted claims, including biomimetic structures, drive systems, sensors, and intelligent interaction functionalities.
The Defendant denied infringement and filed a counterclaim seeking compensation for losses caused by malicious intellectual property litigation, including attorneys’ fees incurred in defending the case.
First-Instance Judgment
On 4 February 2026, the Hangzhou Intermediate People’s Court rendered its first-instance judgment in the present case.
1. Non-Infringement Finding
The court held that the accused A2 robotic dog did not fall within the scope of the asserted patent claims because it lacked multiple mandatory claim limitations.
The court emphasized that all technical features recited in a patent claim must be considered in determining infringement under the “all-elements rule”. The court expressly stated that “all technical features in the asserted claims must be taken into account when determining the scope of patent protection”. Specifically, the court found that the A2 product lacked:
the “color-changing biomimetic fur” feature; liquid level sensors; gas sensors; smoke and temperature sensors; infrared signal transmission modules; and other claim limitations.
The Plaintiff attempted to argue that industrial laser radar systems used in the accused product were equivalent to the claimed gas sensors and environmental monitoring features. The court rejected this argument, finding that the lidar system and the patented sensors addressed “different technical problems”, and differed in “structure, function, and technical effect”.
The court further rejected the Plaintiff’s argument that certain limitations were “non-essential” technical features, reiterating that a patentee cannot selectively disregard claim limitations during infringement analysis.
2. Finding of Malicious Litigation
More significantly, the first-instance court concluded that:
“The Plaintiff interfered with and adversely affected the Defendant’s normal business operations through litigation in order to obtain improper benefits, thereby violating the purpose and spirit of the intellectual property legal system. Such conduct constituted an abuse of rights and amounted to malicious litigation.”
The court also considered the Plaintiff’s prior enforcement history. In an earlier lawsuit filed on 1 July 2025 concerning the Defendant’s “Go2” robotic dog product, both the Hangzhou Intermediate People’s Court and, on appeal, the Supreme People’s Court had already determined that the accused product did not fall within the protection scope of the asserted patent claims. In the related appellate judgment, the SPC criticized the Plaintiff’s litigation conduct as being “both carefully calculated and repeatedly inconsistent”, observing that the Plaintiff appeared intent on minimizing litigation costs while simultaneously exerting litigation pressure on the opposing party. Despite those earlier findings, the Plaintiff subsequently initiated the present action concerning another robotic dog model based on substantially similar infringement theories.
The court relied on several factors:
1) Failure to obtain and submit physical products
Although the accused products were publicly available for purchase, the Plaintiff relied only on screenshots, manuals, promotional videos, and technical documents rather than purchasing and examining actual products.
2) Repeated lawsuits despite prior adverse findings
The Plaintiff filed substantially similar infringement actions against different robotic dog models after the courts had already found no infringement in the earlier Go2 litigation.
3) Nominal damages claims inconsistent with alleged large-scale infringement
The Plaintiff alleged massive infringement and severe damages, yet sought only RMB 1,500 while simultaneously reserving the right to later seek audited damages. The court regarded this strategy as designed to minimize litigation costs while exerting pressure on the Defendant.
4) Timing during the Defendant’s IPO process
The court noted that the lawsuits were filed while the Defendant was undergoing IPO counseling and preparation, and specifically found that the Plaintiff sought to “exert adverse influence” on the Defendant during its IPO process through the patent litigation.
Accordingly, the court dismissed all infringement claims and ordered the Plaintiff to compensate the Defendant RMB 80,000 for attorneys’ fees incurred in responding to the malicious litigation.
Supreme People’s Court Decision
The Plaintiff appealed the first-instance judgment. The SPC docketed the appeal on 25 February 2026 and held a public hearing on 15 April 2026, and rendered its final judgment on 24 April 2026.
During the second-instance proceedings, another significant development occurred: on 12 March 2026, the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) issued Decision No. 630074 declaring all claims of the asserted patent invalid for lack of inventiveness.
Although the Plaintiff challenged the invalidation decision in separate administrative proceedings, the SPC nevertheless affirmed the first-instance judgment in full.
The SPC agreed that:
the accused A2 robotic dog did not contain multiple required technical features of the patent claims; the Plaintiff’s equivalence arguments lacked technical and legal basis; the Plaintiff had failed to provide adequate infringement evidence; and the litigation conduct constituted abuse of rights and malicious litigation.
Comment
The decision reflects the SPC’s continued strict application of the all-elements rule and its cautious approach toward equivalence arguments involving fundamentally different technologies. It also highlights the importance of reasonable pre-suit investigation, including examination of actual accused products where available.
Most notably, the SPC signaled that intellectual property litigation should not be used primarily as a strategic tool to exert commercial pressure or interfere with financing and IPO activities. For companies in emerging sectors such as robotics and AI hardware, the decision provides reassurance that Chinese courts are prepared both to protect legitimate patent rights and to sanction abusive patent assertions.