June 7, 2026

On Thursday, SIM IP CEO Erich Spangenberg raised antitrust concerns over LOT Network in a LinkedIn post. He argued that while the organization presents itself as a "patent defense alliance," its structure, a horizontal agreement among members, may cross the antitrust line once membership exceeds 5,000.

Last month, SIM IP acquired 126 AV1/AV2 patents from Alibaba (PRIP Substack, May 19, 2026). In another LinkedIn post, Spangenberg wrote: “Alibaba is a LOT member. We still closed the deal.” But LOT’s non-assertion provisions covering patents transferred to PAEs may limit the monetization of Alibaba's patents. That is where he worries that LOT's model could violate US or EU regulations.

In another article, PRIP analyzed "Who Gets Immunity From Alibaba's AV1/AV2 Patent Sales, Who Doesn't?" (PRIP Substack, May 24, 2026) However, Erick Robinson, in his LinkedIn post, offered an explanation as to why SIM IP is not restricted by the LOT agreement. In any case, this has become a very interesting topic.

At the end of his post, Spangenberg cautioned LOT members' legal departments to be careful of the organization's antitrust risks. PRIP has reviewed LOT’s full membership records and confirmed multiple participants have exited the network. Our analysis indicates that antitrust concerns are not the primary driver behind these exits; instead, most companies left to advance their patent monetization strategies or complete merger and acquisition activities.

TCL Withdraws from LOT with 70,000 Patents

TCL's withdrawal is cited as a typical case in the 2025 LOT Network Report.

A timely example underscoring the urgency of early LOT Network enrollment was TCL leaving the community. A LOT member since 2020 and a global electronics manufacturer, it left the Network in October 2025. TCL currently owns over 70,000 patent assets, many of which could become highly attractive targets for PAEs.

This means that if you join LOT Network in September 2025, you will receive immunity from over 70,000 TCL patents when TCL transfers those patents to a PAE (PRIP Wechat, May 20, 2026).

5 Chinese Companies Withdraw, Totaling Over 100,000 Patents

In 2023, Hikvision was the first Chinese company to withdraw. Subsequently, Zhejiang Dahua Technology, which is in the same business as Hikvision, also withdrew. Both companies withdrew because they were subject to US sanctions and completely exited the US market, making LOT no longer beneficial to them. Each company holds more than 10,000 patents.

Kuaishou, TCL, and Quectel later exited LOT as well. These five companies hold over 100,000 patents in total.

The 2025 LOT Network Report notes that Chinese members contribute 800,000 patents to the network, meaning roughly one-eighth of this total portfolio has been taken off the platform following the recent withdrawals.

China stands out with over 800,000 patents and applications under license, reflecting the country’s central role in global innovation.

Covenant Not to Sue: Practices in China

A Chinese SEP expert shared his views with PRIP on Spangenberg’s concerns about LOT’s potential horizontal monopoly risks. He believes the situation is similar to how China’s National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC), in its 2015 antitrust penalty against Qualcomm, determined that the free grant-back license in Qualcomm’s licensing agreements constituted an abuse of dominant market position. Qualcomm required licensees not to assert their relevant patents or bring lawsuits against Qualcomm and its customers. The NDRC found that this conduct completely negated the value of the licensees’ patents, suppressed their motivation for technological innovation, hindered the innovation and development of wireless communication technology, and eliminated or restricted competition in the wireless communication technology market.

In the ZTE v. Samsung case (PRIP Substack, May 10, 2026), the Chongqing court also clarified the nature of a CNS (Covenant Not to Sue), ruling that a CNS does not constitute a license. Therefore, when calculating royalties, the licensing fees for the period covered by the CNS between the parties in 2024 should be included. However, UK courts hold the opposite view.

Qualcomm's agreement is mandatory, while the CNS between ZTE and Samsung is voluntary. The LOT Network agreement is also voluntarily joined by its members. Therefore, the related antitrust issues deserve further study.

Conclusion

China has never seen a patent defense organization like LOT Network or AST, so Chinese antitrust authorities have no experience in dealing with horizontal patent coordination behaviors under such organizational agreements. However, this could become a good direction for future research.

Chinese companies first joined LOT Network in 2017, and their number rose to 17 by 2019. Excluding the five departing companies, at least 35 Chinese enterprises remain active members to date.

June 6, 2026

The Shanghai Intellectual Property Court will hold hearings over three consecutive days next week in the antitrust case Tian v. Apple, focusing on alleged abuse of market dominance. As the hearings are open to the public, individuals may attend in person next week by presenting valid identification at the court.

Apple-Related Cases Speed Up in China (First Half of 2026)

The H1 2026 has seen a notable acceleration in the pace of litigation involving Apple across multiple Chinese courts, including the Intellectual Property Court of the Supreme People’s Court, the Shanghai High People’s Court, the Shanghai Intellectual Property Court, and the Shenzhen Intermediate People’s Court. The courts have intensively scheduled and concentrated hearings for three major types of disputes: patent infringement, patent administrative validation, and antitrust litigation. This marks a significant shift from criticism that has been around for years “Apple’s cases in China often drag on for years, and some disputes just keep going for over a decade without ever getting resolved.”

Antitrust Developments

Before the Tian v. Apple antitrust case, the Shanghai Intellectual Property Court had already concluded China’s first consumer initiated "Apple Tax" antitrust suit, which completed its first instance trial after three years of proceedings. The court ruled that Apple holds a dominant position in China’s iOS app distribution market, with both the plaintiff and Apple subsequently filing appeals.

Following this case, Apple China officially took the initiative on March 13, 2026, to announce that from March 15, 2026, it would lower its App Store commission rates for mainland China: standard in-app purchase and paid app commissions would drop from 30% to 25%, while commissions under the Small Business Program, Mini Apps Partner Program, and for subscription renewals after the first year would drop from 15% to 12%. (PRIP Substack, March 13, 2026)

Accelerated Patent Infringement Proceedings

Patent lawsuits are speeding up most obviously. In the H1 2026, courts in Shanghai and Shenzhen, the two key forums for IP trials, arranged lots of court hearings. Companies including IWNCOMM (PRIP Substack, June 30, 2025; PRIP Substack, Oct 22, 2024) and Shenzhen STR (PRIP Wechat, Jan 11, 2026) went to Shanghai’s higher and IP courts over patent fights on sensor-shift OIS and WAPI wireless SEP.

Meanwhile, the Shenzhen Intermediate People’s Court has held consecutive hearings in cases brought by Shenzhen Shengdike Technology and other companies against Apple for alleged patent infringement.

The Intellectual Property Court of the Supreme People’s Court issued a final judgment in the administrative case concerning Xiao i Robot and Qualcomm (PRIP Wechat, Feb 3, 2026). SPC delivered a final judgment in the QR code patent case (PRIP Wechat, April 8, 2026), and also issued a final judgment in the GPRS SEP patent case brought by U.S. based GPNE (PRIP Substack, May 7, 2026). The court affirmed the validity of Xiao i’s patent and rejected GPNE’s claims. Both cases had been pending for over a decade.

Apple’s Litigation Track Record in China: Only one damages award to date: US$20 million

Publicly available information on Apple’s patent cases in China remains very limited. PRIP’s collection of cases might only be the tip of the iceberg, but it still shows that patent holders in China are asserting their rights against Apple quite often

Notably, to date, Apple has been ordered to pay compensation in only one patent infringement judgment in China. In the case brought by China IWNCOMM, after eight years of litigation, the Supreme People’s Court ordered Apple to pay approximately US$20 million in licensing fees. Aside from that ruling, Apple has not been required by any Chinese court to pay damages, a fact that has drawn significant criticism from many patent holders.

This $20 million figure has since become an informal benchmark cap for other patent owners filing suits against Apple. For instance, Gettop Acoustic, one of Apple’s component suppliers, filed an infringement claim against the firm in 2025, seeking exactly USD 20 million in compensation (PRIP Substack, October 14, 2025; PRIP Substack, April 22, 2025).

June 5, 2026

On 11 May 2026, IAM Deputy Editor Adam Houldsworth exclusively covered the VCL committee’s vote proposal to change Sisvel as new pool administrator. Two separate resolutions were put to VCL licensors for voting: (1) To change the administrator of the VCL licensing programme from Access Advance to Sisvel; (2) To suspend the pool’s royalty rate penalties applicable to departing patent holders, facilitating licensors’ transfer to Access Advance’s standalone original HEVC/VVC patent pools. Either resolution shall require a three-quarters affirmative supermajority from all licensors to be approved.

PRIP has learned from insiders that the vote failed because it didn’t get the required supermajority. PRIP has reached out to relevant parties for formal confirmation but has not yet received any response.

Who voted?

PRIP analyzed the VCL licensor list. There are 53 entities in total on the list, but 18 of them (Area C and Area D) have withdrawn from the VCL patent pool (Terminated), and the HEVC patents of three licensors—including Xiaomi—have expired. Therefore, it is speculated that the main participants in the vote are the remaining 32 licensors (Area A and Area B), meaning a proposal would need more than 24 votes to pass.

Who is most affected?

PRIP compared the overlap of licensors between the VCL pool and the Access Advance (AA) HEVC/VVC pool. Fifteen VCL licensors are also in AA. These overlapping licensors can be divided into three categories.

First, Xiaomi no longer has valid HEVC patents (Area E), but Xiaomi has joined AA’s VVC pool. Second, licensors that have withdrawn from VCL, such as Samsung, Hikvision, and NEC (Area C), are also licensors in AA, so they are less affected. Third, licensors still in the VCL pool, such as Sisvel and Canon (Area B), are also licensors in the AA pool, so the impact on them is also limited. The licensors that are significantly affected by this voting event may be those in Area A. As reported by IAM, this vote was initiated by Harold Barrault of Orange, chair of the Administrative Committee.

What’s next?

If this vote fails, then the licensors in Area A may also choose to withdraw from VCL, so this group of licensors will have future choices similar to those currently in Area D. Meanwhile, licensors that are in both pools may shift their focus to AA.

What is your take?

June 2, 2026

On Tuesday, the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) issued another patent invalidation decision concerning Xiaomi’s challenge against Advanced Standard Communication’s (ASC) patent after a six-month interval. After panel review, the panel held that Claims 1 and 9 of ASC’s patent lack novelty over D1 (InterDigital’s WO2009045871 A1), while remaining Claims 2–8 and 10–11 are not inventive. The patent was invalidated.

ZL200910222117.3, The acquisition methods of PDCP status report and PDCP entity

Cn200910222117

388KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

In January, PRIP published an article titled "ASC v. Xiaomi in China: 5 Patents, Only One Claim Survives," which detailed the patent invalidation challenges between the two parties in China. In the end, only one claim from ASC’s five patents survived. Six months later, things have changed in their China dispute—Xiaomi has filed additional challenges against another five of ASC’s patents. Tuesday’s ruling marks the first finalized decision, and the other four patent invalidation challenges are still pending. Xiaomi hired five Chinese agencies well known for patent invalidation, while ASC relied on Hong Kong Patent Agency (CPA) to respond.

ASC acquired the patent from ZTE. Though ASC has yet to initiate litigation against Xiaomi in China, it has two pending suits targeting Xiaomi before the UPC. By challenging ASC's Chinese patents, Xiaomi may be trying to demonstrate that those patents are of low quality. Based on the current results, the quality of ASC’s patents is indeed questionable. And this will also raise doubts about the quality of ZTE’s patents.

Doubts over patent quality also hit another NPE: Ox Mobile Technologies LLC (OMT), which acquired patents from ZTE, sued Xiaomi and OPPO in Germany. One of its patents (EP2068582B1) was held non-inventive by the German Federal Patent Court.

In short, ZTE rarely files lawsuits on its own; instead, it transfers patents to NPEs/PAEs. As a result, most validity tests for ZTE’s patents end up being conducted by those NPEs. This explains why Judge Meade ruled ENI and ZTE were not comparable in Samsung v ZTE, concluding ZTE lacks litigation-grade patents.

"The ZTE portfolio has no battle tested patents."

"Litigation would be seen as a strong and reasonably close threat when dealing with patentees who had (a) a track record of litigating by bringing infringement claims and getting injunctions, (b) proven "litigation grade" patents, and (c) litigation resources."

"I have concluded that the ENI licences are not usable as comparables at all. The two main reasons are (i) the portfolios of the three ENI counterparties being so different from the ZTE portfolio, even once sheer size is accounted for, and (ii) the ENI counterparties' very great expertise at out-licensing and, particularly, their willingness and ability to litigate."

Therefore, while ZTE may have more SEPs than ENI in terms of quantity, the quality of its patents indeed still needs further proof.

June 1, 2026

The China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) has recently updated a series of new records on patent invalidation records, including five challenges filed by Transsion against Chinese patents held by Ericsson, as well as one additional challenge against a patent owned by InterDigital. The six cases are scheduled to hold their oral hearings starting from July 1, 2026.

PRIP reviewed the European family patents of the six Chinese patents; none have been used by Ericsson or InterDigital to sue Transsion in Europe. Hence Transsion’s Chinese invalidation moves are not aimed at providing proof for UPC cases. Historical industry experience also suggests that challenging Chinese patents to validate the stability of European patents is not a viable litigation tactic in practice.

Transsion’s entire patent strategy against Ericsson and InterDigital has pivoted dramatically after settling litigation with Huawei and joining the HEVC patent pool. After halting new licensing deal sign-offs, the firm’s financial performance rebounded notably in Q1 2026, posting total operating revenue of RMB 16.2 billion (USD 2.2405 billion) and a net profit of RMB 700 million (USD 96.81 million). Apple’s Q1 revenue hit USD 143.756 billion with USD 42.097 billion; Apple’s revenue is about 64.16 times Transsion’s, while its net profit is around 434.84 times Transsion’s.

I wonder how big the royalty gap is between Apple and Transsion for Ericsson and InterDigital’s licensing fees – is the difference as much as 64 times? This may explain why collecting patent royalties tends to prove far more difficult from smaller, less profitable licensees.

In addition, CNIPA has released oral hearing details for another HEVC patent invalidation case filed by Xiaomi against Dolby, scheduled for June 12, 2026. Originally owned by GE Video, the patent was previously challenged by Xiaomi during its litigation with GE back in 2022. Curiously, Xiaomi joined the HEVC patent pool last year, making the newly filed invalidation petition highly anomalous. It may be a CNIPA administrative data error, yet such administrative errors happen infrequently.

June 1, 2026

The UPC Munich Local Division has made public two provisional measures cases on Monday in which it granted German power equipment giant Reinhausen GmbH (MR) an emergency ex parte application to dismantle, photograph and seize an on-load tap changer (OLTC) exhibited by Chinese rival Shanghai Huaming Power Equipment Co. (Huaming) at an industry trade fair in Berlin, as the two companies clash over who gets to supply a crucial component for AI data centers.

2026 05 20 Anordnung Bewsich U Insp Cfi 1751 26 U 1752 26 Signed All

1.29MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

The order issued May 20 by Presiding Judge Daniel Voß (docket numbers UPC-CFI-0001751/2026, UPC-CFI-0001752/2026, UPC-CFI-0001746/2026, UPC-CFI-0001747/2026) authorizes MR, through an expert and a bailiff, to inspect Huaming’s “DET-24kV” OLTC at booth 27E40 of the CWIEME fair. The court expressly allows the OLTC “to be disassembled into its functional individual parts,” “the on-load tap-changer base plate to be removed and electrical measurements to be carried out,” and, if necessary, the physical seizure of the device itself.

The court sided with MR without hearing Huaming because it was afraid evidence would be destroyed. The order notes that Huaming is based in China and the fair ends May 21, after which “the respondent will take the OLTC to be inspected back to China, where an inspection and securing of evidence is fundamentally impossible.” The court also cited the applicant’s statement that Huaming’s 2025 exhibition device was a “non-functional dummy,” which had prevented MR from obtaining product information through other means.

The patents are EP3427284 B1, titled “on-load tap changer device” and EP3427283 B1, titled “Selector for an on-load tap changer and on-load tap changer with load transfer switch and selector". They cover components of large power transformers that regulates voltage while the transformer is live. With the boom in AI data center construction, the strategic importance of OLTCs has surged. Hyperscale AI computing centers require extremely stable voltage, making the OLTC a critical link in the power supply for computing infrastructure.

The global OLTC market is a classic oligopoly. The top three players hold 82% of the global market. MR has long been the global leader with over 40% market share. Huaming is the only Chinese company mastering the core technology, holding about 18% of the global market and 90% of the Chinese market. Hitachi Energy ranks third. Huaming’s overseas revenue has grown rapidly in recent years, with exports exceeding $100 million in 2025, up 47% year-on-year, and overseas markets now accounting for 20% of its total revenue.

The order provides that service on Huaming shall occur at the same time as enforcement, meaning Huaming may first learn of the decision when a bailiff arrives at its booth. To balance the parties’ interests, the court imposed a confidentiality regime: the expert’s detailed technical description will be filed with the court first, and Huaming will have four weeks to apply for confidentiality; otherwise, the description will be fully disclosed to MR. The court did not require MR to post security, reasoning that “unlike an injunction, the inspection and securing of evidence will at most cause minor damage to the respondent.”

If MR secures an injunction in the subsequent main proceedings, Huaming’s expansion in the European AI data center power market would be directly blocked. It is foreseeable that patent litigation related to AI data centers and infrastructure will only increase in the future.

Reinhausen GmbH was represented by Tobias Schneider and Dr. Detlef Mäder of Luther Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft mbH, and Dr. Marius Fischer of BARDEHLE PAGENBERG Partnerschaft mbB.

May 31, 2026

On Wednesday, Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. (688772.SH, “CosMX”) announced in a litigation settlement statement that, through court mediation in relevant jurisdictions, CosMX and Ningde Amperex Technology Co., Limited (“ATL”) reached a settlement after multiple rounds of negotiations and will withdraw all lawsuits worldwide.

ATL is the world’s largest consumer electronics battery manufacturer, while CosMX has grown rapidly in recent years and ranks second. However, the statement did not specify which court mediated the settlement.

Background

ATL was founded in 1999 by Robin Zeng—the founder of CATL. It is one of China’s earliest lithium battery manufacturers. Its customers include major consumer electronics companies such as Apple, Samsung, Huawei, and Xiaomi.

CosMX went public in 2021 (IPO) and grew rapidly, soon threatening ATL’s leading position in the industry. Accordingly, in June 2021, ATL sent CosMX cease-and-desist letters alleging infringement of Chinese and U.S. patents, and in December 2021 filed a patent infringement lawsuit against CosMX with the Fuzhou Intermediate People’s Court (PRIP Wechat, Jan 17, 2022).

Over the following years, ATL remained the primary party initiating litigation. The battle spread from China to the United States and then to Germany, where ATL secured victories in all three jurisdictions, obtaining damages awards and a German injunction. Yet these successes did not lead to a settlement between the parties. Instead, during this period, CosMX continued to file new patent applications, preparing for a later counterattack (PRIP Wechat, Mar 31, 2025).

Jurisdiction and Courts

Starting in 2024, CosMX, which had been on the defensive, also began to take the offensive. After years of patent applications and using the lithium-ion battery patents obtained from Panasonic when joining Tulip (PRIP Substack, Oct 13, 2025), it launched a counterattack against ATL (PRIP Substack, Dec 19, 2025). The courts involved in the litigation between the two parties in China include those in Fuzhou, Beijing, Guangzhou, Nanjing, and Chongqing, with some cases appealed to the Supreme People’s Court (PRIP Wechat, July 19, 2025).

In response to CosMX's counterattack, ATL discovered that among the patents used by CosMX, some appeared to have been filed after allegedly misappropriating ATL's trade secrets. As a result, ATL filed new lawsuits this year involving trade secrets and patent ownership disputes, also pointing to issues regarding "copycat patents" . (PRIP Wechat, April 14, 2025) Subsequently, CosMX abandoned the disputed patents in the United States (PRIP Substack, Dec 19, 2025).

Additionally, ATL filed two infringement lawsuits against CosMX in the United States (PRIP Wechat, Aug 7, 2022), one of which resulted in a $4.7 million damages award. In the litigation before the Munich Regional Court I (PRIP Wechat, Mar 21, 2023), ATL obtained an injunction, and the German Federal Patent Court subsequently confirmed the validity of the patent (PRIP Substack, July 18,2025).

Why and who mediated?

Although CosMX did not specifically mention which court led the mediation between the two parties in its statement, it is evident that this type of mediation is a common approach used by Chinese courts in handling patent disputes. PRIP also confirmed this through reliable sources.

In many industries in China, there are similar situations where leading companies in the same sector sue each other for patent infringement. Most of these cases go through mediation in China. For instance, the settlement of lawsuits among several Chinese companies in the photovoltaic industry was actually facilitated by mediation. This is also one of the key efforts in China's governance of "anti-involution".

May 30, 2026

According to a procedural order issued by the UPC Hamburg Local Division on Friday, Dreame and Dyson have settled their provisional measures dispute at the UPC. But a fundamental legal question—whether the UPC can exercise “long‑arm jurisdiction” over non‑EU companies and non‑member states like Spain—remains pending before the CJEU.

962 2026 Order Redacted

736KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Dreame filed its provisional measures application on 18 March 2026, seeking a declaration of non‑infringement and an injunction against Dyson’s patent claims over its new haircare appliances. Following settlement negotiations during the oral hearing on 21 May, the parties signed a settlement agreement on 23 May. Under the deal, only Request I (declaration of non‑infringement) was withdrawn, with no costs decision. Requests II and III were not withdrawn but remain part of the settlement.

As the parties reached a partial settlement, this may resolve the provisional injunction dispute over Dreame’s newly designed products.

The conflict began when Dyson alleged that several Dreame haircare appliances (Dreame Airstyle and Dreame Pocket) infringed its EP 3 119 235 and were highly similar to Dyson’s Airwrap.

In August 2025, the UPC’s Hamburg LD granted a provisional injunction against Dreame’s older products (Dreame Airstyle and Dreame Pocket), but refused it for newer models (Dreame Airstyle Pro and Dreame Pocket Neo). For the first time, the Hamburg LD extended the injunction to Spain – a non‑UPC member state – based on the presence of Dreame’s German authorised representative, Eurep GmbH, as an “anchoring defendant”.

Both parties appealed. On 6 March 2026, the UPC Court of Appeal (CoA) issued two decisions: it broadened the injunction to cover Dreame’s new models, and most importantly, it put on hold the parts of the case related to activities in Spain and Eurep’s legal responsibility. For the first time in UPC history, the CoA referred four questions on cross‑border jurisdiction to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling.

Specifically, the CoA asked whether the UPC can assert jurisdiction over Spain based on conflicting judgment risks; whether cross‑border injunctions can be justified by identical online sales to both UPC and non‑UPC states; whether a German compliance representative can be treated as an “intermediary” liable to injunctions; and whether the answers differ when the alleged infringer is not EU‑based. The CJEU’s ruling will set the limits of the UPC’s long‑arm jurisdiction.

For Chinese and other non‑EU companies selling in Europe, the CJEU’s answer is critical. If the court rules in favour of broad UPC jurisdiction, the UPC could become a powerful tool to enforce patents against non‑EU manufacturers—even for sales made outside UPC member states. If the CJEU limits that jurisdiction, non‑EU defendants will have stronger arguments to resist cross‑border claims.

The case also tests the liability of local representatives. If representatives like Eurep can be treated as “intermediaries” subject to injunctions, that adds new risk for any non‑EU business using a local importer or distributor.

May 29, 2026

On Friday, Avanci China officially announced that Honor has joined the Avanci 4G/5G platform as a licensor.

Laurie Fitzgerald, President of the Avanci Vehicle Platform, stated:

“We sincerely welcome Honor to the Avanci 4G and 5G Vehicle programs as a licensor. Their participation will further strengthen the value our platform delivers to licensees. We appreciate the trust and support of the Honor team in Avanci.”

According to the licensor icons displayed on the Avanci website for the 4G/5G platform, Honor has become the 70th licensor for the 4G program and the 91st licensor for the 5G program.

Honor first started as a sub-brand launched by Huawei in 2011, mainly competing with Xiaomi in the mid-to-low-end smartphone market. It began independent operations in 2013. In 2020, affected by U.S. sanctions, Huawei fully sold the Honor brand.

Since then, Honor has operated completely independently. At the time of the spin-off, Huawei transferred thousands of patents to Honor. Today, Honor files more than 300 patents per month, with a total portfolio of nearly 20,000 patents. It has also acquired dozens of 5G patents from Shanghai Langbo.

According to the 5G report (2026) published by LexisNexis, Honor ranks 30th. Among all TOP 30, only Apple (11th), Xiaomi (13th), and Alphabet (28th) have not joined the 4G or 5G program as licensors. Avanci is indeed the most successful patent pool ever.

Additionally, on Tuesday, PRIP reported via WeChat the latest developments in the patent dispute between Honor and camera lens supplier Largan Precision in China. Honor has filed invalidity challenges against two of Largan’s Chinese patents:

ZL201310030229.5, Plastic lens barrel and manufacturing method thereof

ZL201210335511.X, Optical plastic lens

Last year, Largan sued Honor at the Hangzhou Intermediate People’s Court for patent infringement. The case is similar to the dispute between the two parties in India.

On August 20, 2025, Largan’s Indian law firm Singh & Singh announced that the Delhi High Court had found Honor’s 200 Series smartphones infringed three of Largan’s patents—primarily related to 5P lens technology—and issued an ex-parte ad-interim injunction (PRIP Wechat, Aug 21, 2025).

The latest developments in China indicate the parties have not yet reached a settlement.

Largan’s strategy is to use patent litigation to defend its position as a key supplier. The company previously sued Apple and Samsung and ultimately achieved its goals in both cases.

May 28, 2026

On Wednesday, Chinese power battery firm Sunwoda released an official statement. The German Federal Patent Court invalidated Tulip’s core lithium-ion battery patent after an oral hearing on May 19.

On October 21, 2024, Sunwoda initiated nullity proceedings before the German Federal Patent Court against the German designation of European Patent No. 2 528 141 (“EP141”) (docket no. 3 Ni 17/24 (EP)), in response to the infringement proceedings brought by Tulip Innovation Kft. against Sunwoda based on EP141.

At the oral hearing held on May 19, 2026, the German Federal Patent Court declared EP141 invalid in its entirety with effect for the territory of Germany.

Last year, Presiding Judge Oliver Schön of the Munich Regional Court approved Tulip’s injunction to block imports and sales of the Dacia Spring in Germany. The Renault Group’s Romanian brand Dacia builds this China-made compact EV fitted with Sunwoda batteries for global sales.

According to a 2016 article on IPKat, statistics covering rulings from 2010 to 2013 show the German Federal Patent Court fully invalidated 44% of litigated patents, partially invalidated another 36%, leaving only 20% entirely valid.

Three Injunctions, No Settlement

On May 22, 2025, the Munich Regional Court issued injunctions targeting the disputed batteries in two cases, involving the German portions of European patents EP1829139 B1 and EP2528141 B1.

On July 17, 2025, Tulip announced that the 7th Division of the Munich Regional Court had issued a third injunction, based on European patent EP2378595 B1 originally owned by LG Chem.

All patents cover the combination of electrodes and battery separators, a component critical to the safety and performance of automotive batteries.

However, the three injunctions did not persuade Sunwoda to join Tulip——the administrator of the lithium-ion battery patent pool co-founded by LG Energy Solution and Panasonic Energy.

On January 19, 2026, Tulip announced its new action aganist Sunwoda extend to South Korea. The Korea Trade Commission (KTC) instituted a case based on Tulip’s complaint. Tulip alleges that Sunwoda’s lithium-ion battery cells, as well as the battery packs supplied to Geely Auto for a best-selling hybrid SUV in South Korea, infringe its patent KR10-1089135.

CosMX and ATL Challenged the Patent, Then Settled

ATL and Zhuhai CosMX, the world’s top two polymer Li-ion battery makers, challenged this European patent EP141 and its Chinese family member for invalidity, but settled prior to the invalidity decisions.

According to a Juve Patent report from last May, Mathieu Klos wrote that CosMX and BAK Battery initiated invalidation proceedings for the two patents.

The Sunwoda dispute is part of Tulip’s large-scale campaign against Chinese battery manufacturers. The NPE previously sued CosMX and BAK Power. Both battery makers filed nullity actions against EP 139 and EP 141 but then quickly reached agreements with Tulip.

PRIP’s search of China’s patent database shows that Sunwoda has filed an invalidation challenge against Tulip’s Chinese patent ZL200580044583.7——a family member of EP141.

During the dispute with LG Chem in 2018, ATL filed an invalidation request for this chinese patent with the CNIPA, and the two sides later reached a settlement.

Sunwoda: New Supplier for Tesla & Xiaomi

Two pieces of news about Sunwoda drew public attention last month. First, Chinese media reported that Sunwoda has become Tesla’s fifth battery supplier, following CATL, Panasonic, LG Energy Solution and BYD. Later, Xiaomi Auto’s new brand Xuntian confirmed Sunwoda as its top battery supplier, accounting for 60% of its supply volume.

Therefore, with a favorable position in the patent invalidation proceedings, Sunwoda may use this as a bargaining chip to accelerate dispute resolution. For Tulip’s patent pool, however, with a core patent being ruled invalid, doubts will arise about the validity of other patents in the pool.

May 27, 2026

On Tuesday, the UPC Mannheim Local Division issued a procedural order in the patent dispute between Ericsson and Transsion. The court clarified that it will not hear FRAND-related disputes raised by Ericsson. In particular, the Mannheim LD will only adjudicate infringement claims, while FRAND matters are reserved for The Hague Local Division.

2026 05 26 Order R

707KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Since November last year, Ericsson has filed patent infringement actions against Transsion using seven patents, bringing cases before the Hague Local Division, the Paris Central Division, and the Mannheim Local Division. In March 2026, Transsion filed a patent infringement action against Ericsson before the Lisbon Local Division. Transsion did not file a counterclaim for revocation against Ericsson's patents. Ericsson, in May, filed a revocation against Transsion's patents before the Paris Central Division, rather than filing a counterclaim for revocation before the Lisbon Local Division.

PRIP consulted UPC lawyers and SEP experts regarding Ericsson's strategy of filing a standalone revocation action before the Paris Central Division. Some believe that a standalone revocation proceeding is faster than FRAND proceedings, which gives the parties an advantage in controlling the timing of negotiations. Others think this strategy is based on the higher success rate of invalidity challenges in different venues. Still others believe that Ericsson simply prefers not to choose Lisbon, or hopes to have the Lisbon case transferred to the Paris Central Division. Of course, it cannot be excluded that Ericsson might subsequently file a parallel counterclaim for revocation in Lisbon.

What the Parties Dispute in Mannheim LD

In the Mannheim proceedings, apart from seeking injunctions, product recall and destruction of infringing goods, Ericsson attached a special precondition to its remedies: the injunction shall take effect only if Transsion declines Ericsson’s licensing offer. This is defined as the FRAND Specific Condition.

At the same time, Ericsson submitted another, more direct request — seeking a declaration from the court that “Ericsson’s licence offer is itself FRAND-compliant” — exclusively to the Hague Local Division. In other words, Ericsson never intended for the Mannheim Local Division to decide the core dispute over whether its licensing terms are fair or not.

Transsion, however, raised concerns that the Mannheim court might hear both infringement and FRAND issues concurrently, which would cause procedural confusion and impose excessive defense burdens.

Therefore, Transsion requested the court:

I. To declare that the FRAND Specific Claims are not pending in the present proceedings before the Mannheim Local Division and therefore cannot give rise to a preliminary objection at this stage of the proceedings;

II. In the alternative, to declare that the court lacks competence and/or jurisdiction to rule on the FRAND Specific Claims.

FRAND Specific Claims & Conditions: What’s the Difference?

The Hague Local Division referenced Ericsson’s FRAND-related claims in its order dated May 13, distinguishing between FRAND Specific Claims (B.II) and the (Conditional) FRAND Injunction Claim (C.III).

2026 05 13 Order

2.98MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

The FRAND Specific Condition in the Mannheim order of 26 May.

Conclusion

As confirmed by the Mannheim Local Division, the FRAND Specific Condition in the statement of claim is merely a precondition for the injunction to take effect, not a request for the court to adjudicate on FRAND issues. The FRAND Specific Claims have only been filed with The Hague Local Division and will not be entertained by the Mannheim court. Accordingly, this proceeding is confined to infringement matters only, and Transsion is not required to raise jurisdiction objections regarding FRAND in this case.

May 26, 2026

Released on Monday, CNIPA’s Draft Guidelines on Administrative Adjudication and Mediation of Patent Disputes (AAMPD) are now open for public comment. Huawei previously used AAMPD to reach settlements with Xiaomi and Transsion outside court. Comments are due by June 9, 2026. Feedback can be emailed to zhifa@cnipa.gov.cn. The draft guidelines and relevant explanatory notes are set out below.

Draft Guidelines For Administrative Adjudication And Mediation（566 Pages）

5.54MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Draft Explanation

429KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Why AAMPD？

AAMPD serves as another key channel for patent dispute resolution in China. Administrative adjudications are primarily issued by CNIPA and local intellectual property administrations. It acts as a vital supplement to judicial proceedings. AAMPD is faster, cheaper, and more technical than litigation, enabling quick, nationwide enforcement.

On June 1, 2021, the CNIPA implemented the Measures for Administrative Adjudication of Major Patent Infringement Disputes, in an effort to strengthen administrative adjudication in major patent cases. Despite being in effect for several years, however, very few cases have been accepted under the Measures. This is not due to lack of demand from companies, but rather because CNIPA has been extremely cautious in accepting cases for filing.

The first and only formal administrative adjudication to date are Boehringer Ingelheim v. Sunshine Lake Pharma (PRIP Wechat, Aug 7, 2022). CNIPA found Sunshine Lake Pharma had infringed the patent and issued an injunction ordering the removal of the drug from all national pharmaceutical procurement platforms.

Another case, Huawei v. Xiaomi (PRIP Wechat, May 27, 2023), was accepted by CNIPA but later withdrawn following a global cross‑license settlement. CNIPA played a key role in mediating between the two parties, and no formal administrative adjudication was issued.

Although CNIPA rarely accepts such AAMPD cases, local intellectual property administrations have handled a large number of them. According to statistics released by CNIPA, around 50,000 to 70,000 AAMPD cases have been handled nationwide each year over the past five years.

Who benefits？

1. Pharmaceutical company

Many foreign pharmaceutical companies have used to the AAMPD mechanism to resolve patent disputes in China. Before filing an AAMPD application with CNIPA, Boehringer Ingelheim had already submitted a similar request to the Shanghai Intellectual Property Administration on the same grounds.

In addition, Gilead submitted a patent infringement petition to the Nanjing Intellectual Property Administration on September 23, 2024. It alleges that Kaigen Technology’s Sovri® (Sofosbuvir Tablets) infringes its patent (PRIP Wechat, Oct 5, 2025).

Gilead is not the only party choosing to file AAMPD applications at the Nanjing Intellectual Property Administration. AstraZeneca has brought cases against Sino Universal Pharmaceutical, and Nutricia has initiated proceedings against Nanjing Tongrentang. A number of domestic Chinese enterprises have also chosen this venue for AAMPD actions, including Hangzhou Zhongmei Huadong Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. vs Jewim Pharmaceutical (Shandong) Co., Ltd., and Jiangsu Yuyue Medical Equipment & Supply Co., Ltd. vs Jiangxi Aicare Medical Technology Co., Ltd. (PRIP Wechat, Oct 17, 2025)

2. Huawei & Co.

Companies including Huawei appear to have long trialled China’s administrative adjudication as a means to secure patent royalties for a long time.

PRIP’s earliest coverage dates to 2020 (PRIP Wechat, June 12, 2025). iPEL founder Brian Yates purchased patents from Huawei and ZTE and established a Global Innovation Aggregator (GIA) to administer them. GIA filed AAMPD claims with the Beijing and Hefei Intellectual Property Administrations against Netgear for infringement of ZL2011103890196 (Huawei) and ZL2007101180340 (ZTE). The Beijing authority ruled on May 28, 2020 that Netgear’s products did not infringe Patent No. '196. PRIP analyzed this trend in an article published in March 2023 (PRIP Wechat, Mar 1, 2023).

The Huawei v. Transsion AAMPD case is featured as a typical case in China’s 2025 White Paper on Intellectual Property Protection. This SEP dispute, involving an H.265/HEVC patent in the Access Advance (AA) pool, saw Huawei file an AAMPD claim against Transsion with the Guangdong Intellectual Property Administration in July 2025. During the oral hearing in November 2025, the parties reached a mediation agreement on the spot. Transsion subsequently obtained a license from the AA patent pool, prompting Huawei to withdraw the case.

Conclusion

The CNIPA issued the Measures for Administrative Adjudication and Mediation of Patent Disputes (33 pages) in December 2024. This 566-page draft guideline details the measures from a practical, operational perspective.

Measures For Administrative Adjudication And Mediation Of Patent Disputes （33 Pages）

315KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

PRIP learned that the CNIPA has prioritized AAMPD cases as a key area of work and will increase adjudication of such cases in the future. Therefore, patent holders may pay more attention to this avenue for patent protection in China.

May 25, 2026

On May 19, 2026, Judge Gilstrap denied the plaintiff Collision Communication’s motion for an injunction in the case of Collision Communication v. Samsung, ruling that the four-factor test set forth in the eBay case had not been satisfied. Earlier, the DOJ and the USPTO jointly filed an amicus brief for this case (PRIP Substack, Feb 28, 2026), arguing that overly restricting patent holders from obtaining injunctive relief against patent infringement would weaken incentives for innovation and the injunction is an effective tool to encourage the parties to negotiate based on market principles, rather than having courts set licensing rates. Still, the court stuck to the legal rules set by the 2006 eBay case.

One day earlier, the WDTX court awarded the plaintiff nearly 13 million US dollars in damages and issued a permanent injunction in a design patent infringement suit, finding all four eBay factors were satisfied.

Design Patent Battle Between Two Chinese Motorcycle Firms

Founded in Hangzhou in 2014, plaintiff Sur-Ron Technology established its Chongqing subsidiary in 2016. The Hangzhou unit takes charge of intelligent system research, branding and overseas business, and the Chongqing firm focuses on vehicle production.

Chongqing is China’s motorcycle capital. One in every three exported motorcycles comes from here. The Chinese motorcycle brand ZXMOTO (Zhang Xue Motorcycle) claimed five race wins at this year’s WSBK, setting new records — the strongest proof of Chongqing’s manufacturing and innovation capabilities.

The success of Sur-Ron stems from the launch of the LightBee in 2017 — the world's first mass-produced lightweight electric off-road motorcycle. By reducing the weight of a traditional 120 kg off-road bike to just 50 kg, it created an entirely new category of "lightweight electric off-road" vehicles. In 2025, the company sold 50,000 units, securing the largest share of the high-end market in Europe and the United States, and capturing over 10% of the global market.

Defendant Tanli Power Technology (Chongqing) Co., Ltd. was founded in 2020 and owns the Talaria brand. Many core team members previously worked at Sur-Ron and held key positions there. Two former staff, who were in charge of sales channels and product design at Sur-Ron, stand as key figures in this case.

WDTX Awards $12.96M Damages and Permanent Injunction

On May 21, 2026, Sur-Ron announced the victory via its official WeChat account. On May 18, 2026, the WDTX ruled that products including Sting MX3, Sting MX4(R) and Sting MX5 Pro made by Tanli infringed Sur-Ron’s design patent D854,456.

The court confirmed willful infringement, ordered the defendants to cease all infringing activities immediately, pay compensation of $12,969,110 to Sur-Ron, and issued a permanent injunction effective across the US. Case: 1:23-cv-00442-RP. A jury awarded over $10 million in damages in January.

Chinese Court Also Issues Injunction With Far Lower Damages

In 2023, Sur-Ron simultaneously filed a design patent (ZL201730077820.5) infringement lawsuit against Tanli in a U.S. court and the Hangzhou Intermediate People’s Court in China. After a first-instance trial by the Hangzhou Intermediate Court and a second-instance trial by the Zhejiang High People’s Court, the defendant Tanli was found liable for infringement, ordered to cease sales, and required to pay damages of over RMB 668,000 (US$92,800).

PRIP found additional court records showing Sur-Ron filed separate design patent infringement suits against two copycat enterprises at Ningbo Intermediate People’s Court and Chongqing No.1 Intermediate People’s Court.

In judgment No.(2025) Yu 01 Min Chu 205 issued by Chongqing No.1 Intermediate People’s Court, three defendants including 79BIKE and Yingteng Company were confirmed to have infringed Sur-Ron’s design patent. They were ordered to stop manufacturing, selling and offering infringing products, and to pay damages of RMB 1,112,250 ($154,479).

May 22, 2026

MGI Tech Co., Ltd. (688114.SH, MGI), a gene sequencing equipment maker, announced on Friday that it has received the statement of claim for Case No. HP-2024-000042 from the England and Wales High Court (EWHC). The case has been initiated but no trial date has been set. MGI was originally a subsidiary of China’s BGI Group before being spun off and listed separately.

Background

The plaintiff is London-listed Oxford Nanopore Technologies (LSE: ONT), with defendants including MGI, BGI and five of their affiliate companies.

ONT first stepped into DNA and RNA sequencing in 2014, developing the world's first and only nanopore-based DNA and RNA sequencer. ONT first announced its legal plans against BGI and MGI in September 2024, when it filed a U.S. discovery application to gather evidence for the English court case, alleging breach of contract, trade secret misappropriation and patent infringement.

BGI stated on September 13, 2024 that it rejects the accusations, stating it respects intellectual property rights and will defend its legitimate interests firmly.

On December 5, 2024, ONT formally filed the case against the seven BGI and MGI entities at the EWHC.

MGI stated in the announcement that the case has not yet completed service on all defendants, making it unable to confirm the impact at this stage. Additionally, MGI noted that no quantified monetary claim has been set, though the plaintiff alleges it is seeking preliminary damages of £10 million or more against the defendants.

Dispute Details

According to MGI’s disclosure filing, the case traces to BGI-related entities’ participation in ONT’s 2014 MinION Access Programme (MAP), through which they obtained ONT’s sequencing technology and confidential data. 2017 and 2018 agreements limited use to authorized research only, banning competing product development and imposing strict confidentiality rules.

ONT alleges the defendants built the CycloneSEQ WuTong 02 sequencer, a competing device now being or poised for commercialization. It claims all seven defendants were substantially involved in the product’s development and commercial launch, asserting breach-of-contract claims against two parties and trade secret/confidential information misuse claims against all.

ONT seeks injunctions to block use or sale of the CycloneSEQ WuTong 02 sequencer, destruction of materials using its confidential data, damages plus interest, and full payment of its litigation costs.

Conclusion

MGI stated in its disclosure document that revenue from nanopore sequencing business accounted for less than 3% of its total operating income in 2025, and its related products have not been sold in the UK.

PRIP reported ONT-related patent invalidation disputes in China back in 2022 (PRIP Wechat, June 21,2022), highlighting Chinese patent ZL201080017555.7 directed to lipid bilayer sensor array. The CNIPA upheld the patent’s validity after claim amendments. However, the patent invalidation petitioner is a straw party, and the actual beneficial party behind it cannot be confirmed as BGI or MGI.

May 20, 2026

SIM IP announced on Tuesday that it has acquired 126 video codec patents from Alibaba, covering AV1, AV2 and VCM technologies. Erich Spangenberg added on LinkedIn the transaction was finalized even though Alibaba remains a LOT Network member. He also explained the issue further:

The takeaway for sellers: anti-NPE commitments don’t have to mean dead-end optionality. There are structures that work for LOT members, defensive holders, and operating companies who want monetization without reputational drag. We build them.

In fact, Alibaba joined LOT Network in 2017 and AOMedia in 2018. Anyone familiar with the mechanisms of LOT and AOMedia understands that the two organizations serve distinct purposes. AOMedia promotes royalty-free AV1/AV2, so its members do not sue one another. The core mechanism of LOT is License on Transfer: when a LOT member sells its patents to a PAE, all other LOT members automatically receive a perpetual license to those patents, making them unenforceable against other LOT members.

However, Alibaba is no longer listed as a member on the AOMedia website, so the cross-license within the alliance no longer covers these patents, and automatic immunity is no longer available.

Since Alibaba remains a LOT Network member, more than 6,000 fellow LOT members will automatically receive a license to the patents following their transfer to SIM IP.

Among these more than 6,000 members, how many are likely to be involved in AV1/AV2/VCM technologies? PRIP made a rough estimate, showing that over 300 entities may be engaged in video/audio-related businesses. These players include Netflix, Warner Bros., Paramount, TikTok, Snap, Meta and Google, many of which are involved in ongoing patent litigation. In addition, some Chinese streaming platforms including Tencent, Baidu, Kuaishou and Bilibili are also LOT members. Companies on this list are entitled to automatic patent immunity. Relevant data is attached in the Excel file below.

Video Audio Related Members In Lot Network

27.8KB ∙ XLSX file

Download

Download

If all the major streaming platforms that use AV1 are LOT members, then what can SIM IP actually do with these acquired patents?

PRIP further carried out supplementary research, sorting out media platforms, television operators, hardware vendors, CDNs and other industrial players adopting AV1 and AV2 technologies. After excluding LOT members, it produced the following list.

Among these more than 60 potential targets, the major players include Sony and many television broadcasters. Notably, DAZN (PRIP Substack, Mar 27, 2026), Rakuten (PRIP Substack, Dec 10, 2025), and RTL (PRIP Substack, May 5, 2026) — which are currently defendants before the UPC — are not LOT members. Accordingly, SIM IP is eligible to enforce these patents against such streaming service providers. Of course, if these companies involved in litigation are interested, they could also purchase these patents, or take these patents as bargaining chips to join relevant patent pools.

Leading hardware firms including Qualcomm, Intel, ARM and MediaTek also adopt such technologies, yet they are hardly targeted for patent litigation.

Therefore, it is not surprising that LOT members transfer patents to PAEs. LOT itself admitted that in its 2025 report:

In reality, members are not obligated to disclose when they sell assets, nor are they required to transfer those assets en masse.

Consider current LOT Network members such as IBM, a respected technology firm and active participant in the secondary patent market. These companies routinely sell patents to third parties, including PAEs. Crucially, LOT does not prevent members from selling assets to PAEs; in fact, it underscores the value of the Network. Because any such transactions automatically result in protections for fellow members, selling assets to PAEs does not introduce risk if you are already part of the Network.

This dynamic illustrates a key point: LOT Network does not affect the traditional uses of patents; it immunizes members when they are transferred to a PAE. The continual circulation of patents across the industry is inevitable. The only way to manage the risk is to be inside the Network before those transfers occur.

May 19, 2026

InterDigital announced on Tuesday that it has inked an IoT patent licensing deal with a payment-focused fintech firm. The license covers the licensee’s point-of-sale (POS) devices, applying InterDigital’s global patents pertaining to 3G, 4G cellular as well as Wi-Fi 5 and Wi-Fi 6 standards. However, InterDigital has not disclosed the name of the licensee, only stating that the company is a widely recognized disruptor in the fintech sector.

This is believed to be InterDigital's first-ever POS licensing deal, as no relevant announcements have been released before. In its Q1 financial results unveiled last month, InterDigital did not separately disclose licensing revenues from payment devices under the IoT category, instead grouping them together with automotive, consumer electronics and other business segments.

PRIP shared InterDigital’s official announcement with two mainstream Chinese AI tools, DeepSeek and ByteDance’s Doubao, to let them deduce the undisclosed licensee. Doubao is equivalent to America’s ChatGPT and Gemini, while DeepSeek is comparable to OpenAI and Llama.

Both DeepSeek and Doubao reached the same conclusion regarding InterDigital's first POS licensee.

Both AIs concluded that Block (formerly Square) fits all descriptions in the announcement. As a global leader in the POS payment sector, it is widely regarded as an industry disruptor.

Doubao pointed out that Block is frequently referred to as a fintech disruptor in European and American financial and tech media, citing original records from Sequoia Capital’s official venture capital archives stating that Square disrupted the traditional POS terminal industry. It also added that mainstream financial outlets including Investopedia and Wall Street institutions have long defined Block as a retail payment disruptor.

Another factor is that Square’s mobile POS devices feature 4G, Wi-Fi 5 and Wi-Fi 6, while desktop models support matching Wi-Fi specs with optional 4G. All products fit InterDigital’s licensed wireless patent coverage.

While Stripe is also a possible candidate, it has obvious shortcomings compared with Square. Its core strength lies in online payment services; its offline POS hardware business only launched on a small scale after 2023, and it is rarely described as an industry disruptor in the sector. Some reports only define Stripe as a leading payment infrastructure firm.

In addition, PayPal is an established industry giant, whereas Verifone and Ingenico are pure hardware manufacturers, not fintech companies.

Of course, both AIs also mentioned that a Chinese firm could also be the licensee, yet PRIP finds this view unconvincing after further analysis.

Disclaimer: All views are personal and shall not be deemed legal advice.

May 19, 2026

Sauvegarder Investment Management (“SIM IP”), a global intellectual capital firm, announced on Tuesday that it has acquired a portion of Alibaba’s video codec patent portfolio. The acquisition includes 126 patent assets covering current and future video coding technologies , such as AV1, AV2 and VCM.

China's major internet companies have invested a lot in video codec R&D, establishing a patent advantage in VVC. In addition, they have also accumulated a significant number of patents covering other codec standards. The AV1/AV2 standards sold by Alibaba in this transaction, however, are not widely used in the Chinese market, but are growing rapidly in the U.S. market.

So for Alibaba, this could be a smart transaction — selling its unused patents to SIM IP and using SIM IP’s ability to monetize patents to generate higher returns.

Alibaba is not alone among major Chinese tech companies with similar plans. PRIP has learned that another company with significant video codec R&D investment has also transferred some of its patents to another NPE.

SIM IP stated that the portfolio creates strong synergies with SIM IP’s existing IP assets in video coding and related technologies. Currently, SIM IP’s investment portfolio includes over 200 patents in video technology, more than 900 patents in extended reality (XR) technology.

“By consolidating these high-quality assets under SIM IP, we are addressing the massive overhead currently weighing down global cloud and AI infrastructure,” said Yasser Zaghloul, Managing Director and Chief Technology Officer of SIM IP, “For AI-driven data centers and streaming platforms, AV1 and AV2 aren’t just technical upgrades—they’re a critical tool to slash the compute and bandwidth costs that erode their bottom line. We are providing a clear, market-driven pathway for companies to adopt this technology through transparent licensing while unlocking sustainable, long-term value for our partners and stakeholders.”

“While this portfolio is already foundational to streaming and data center technologies as well as key technical standards, SIM IP is focused on accelerating its global acquisitions of foundational IP and strengthening its coverage in these core growth sectors, particularly in the AV1/AV2 coding space,” said Ehsan Najafabadi, Vice President at SIM IP.

According to SIM IP's statements, following the Alibaba acquisition, the company's ultimate profit target is aimed directly at AI data companies – including major video service providers such as Amazon, Google, and Meta.

According to LinkedIn remarks recently shared by Spangenberg, President of SIM IP, the firm was established in 2024 and posted no revenue in its founding year. In 2025, it gained over $60 million in proceeds from patents acquired at a cost of $40 million, with its annual revenue projected to exceed $200 million. Besides, SIM IP plans to launch an IPO.

on September 26, 2018, Alibaba Cloud joined the Alliance for Open Media (AOMedia) as a Promoter member, committing to collaborate on an open, royalty‑free AV1 codec. Ant Group – which separated from Alibaba in 2014 – also joined AOMedia in 2025. However, Alibaba Cloud can no longer be found among the members on AOMedia's official website.

May 19, 2026

Sisvel announced on Tuesday that ASUS has settled its lawsuits with Huawei, Philips, and Wilus, becoming the Wi-Fi Multimode pool’s latest licensee.

ASUS is involved in six infringement cases at the UPC, against Nokia, Ericsson, Lenovo, Xiaomi, OPPO, Dolby, and Wilus. By joining Sisvel, ASUS has now resolved its dispute with Wilus, having previously settled with Xiaomi and Dolby. The cases against Nokia, Ericsson, Lenovo, and OPPO remain ongoing. Last week, the Shanghai Intellectual Property Court heard a case brought by OPPO against ASUS.

Last week, another Wi‑Fi 6 patent lawsuit was filed, but it is unrelated to the Sisvel pool.

On May 15, 2026, Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute (ETRI) sued China's Shenzhen Tenda Technology Co., Ltd. in the Eastern District of Texas, claiming infringement of its Wi‑Fi 6 patents, Case: 2:26-cv-00398. ETRI, however, is not a licensor in the Sisvel Wi‑Fi Multimode pool.

US10,405,372, Frame transmission method performed in access point, frame reception method performed in terminal, and access point

US10,506,453, Method for transmitting frame using selective beamforming and apparatus for performing the method

US9,730,238, Communication apparatus and data frame transmission method of the same

US10,250,304, Method of transmitting and receiving frame for uplink multi-user multiple-input and multiple-output (UL MU-MIMO) communication

US11,729,715, Method and apparatus for allocating flexible transmission slot in wireless LAN system

The complaint targets Tenda’s Wi‑Fi 6 compliant products (routers, mesh systems, extenders, USB adapters, IP cameras) that implement technologies like OFDMA and MU‑MIMO, which Tenda markets in the U.S. as advanced high‑efficiency, high‑capacity, low‑latency devices.

Tenda holds a domestic market share of around 5% and a global market share of 2% to 3%, ranking sixth to seventh worldwide after TP-Link, ASUS, Huawei, Xiaomi and Netgear.

Tenda is very well known in China's patent community because about seven or eight years ago, an NPE that had acquired patents from Huawei sued Tenda in China, and the Supreme People's Court later designated that case as a guiding case, which addressed the issue of multi‑implementer infringement. This is also the key legal issue in the IWNCOMM v. Apple case — namely, whether end‑user devices infringe. Apple has been trying to overturn both of these cases in China.

May 19, 2026

On Monday, the UK Court of Appeal handed down a supplementary judgment in Nokia v Acer/ASUS that left the main judgment’s conclusions unchanged. It resolved a single outstanding issue: a disputed term in Nokia’s adjustable licence offers requiring cross-licence arbitration and litigation abandonment for other patents owned by the other party.

Acer Incorporated & Anor V Nokia Technologies Oy [2026] Ewca Civ 604

139KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

In the main judgment, the Court upheld Nokia’s “Adjustable Licence” proposal as a valid RAND offer and ordered a permanent stay of Acer and ASUS’s UK FRAND proceedings, shifting the final rate-setting to ICC arbitration. However, paragraphs 28 and 92 of that decision left open the validity of a disputed term that would have allowed either party to expand the arbitration to cover patents held by the other side, while compelling the suspension or abandonment of related lawsuits.

What does this mean?

The parties are also locked in separate 4G/5G licensing and litigation conflicts. Acer and ASUS hold 4G/5G SEPs and have sued Nokia’s operator customers in the United States. Nokia sought to fold these disputes into the same arbitration, while Acer and ASUS resisted.

Acer and ASUS confirmed willingness to accept Nokia’s Adjustable Licence (interim licence) offers – but insisted the disputed term be deleted. Nokia refused.

The Court of Appeal ruled the disputed term is NOT RAND. Lord Justice Arnold, delivering the leading judgment, gave two core reasons:

• Applying Nokia’s own accepted logic, the choice between arbitration and litigation belongs to the patent owner – in this case, Acer and ASUS for their own SEPs – not to Nokia.

• Nokia cannot condition its RAND licensing obligation on the implementer accepting arbitration over SEPs that cover different technologies, different standards, different SDO IP policies, and different governing laws.

In short, the Court confirmed that SEP owners cannot lawfully force bundling of unrelated standards, jurisdictions, and IP regimes into a single arbitration.

As a result, Acer and ASUS have successfully limited the scope of the arbitration to codec‑related SEPs only.

Under the supplementary judgment, the case management stay is conditional: Nokia must remove the disputed term from the interim licences before the stay takes effect. If Nokia declines to do so, the stay may not be granted.

The Court of Appeal refused refused Acer and ASUS permission to appeal to the UK Supreme Court.

May 17, 2026

Bull Group — not the Chicago Bulls — is a private enterprise based in Ningbo, Zhejiang Province, China. Founded in 1995 and listed via IPO in 2020, it is a leader in China's household electrical products market, holding a 40% share of the socket and switch market.

On May 15, 2026, the Hangzhou Intermediate People's Court published two new court hearings in which the plaintiff, Bull Group, is suing the defendant, Xiaomi, for infringement of two utility model patents. The hearings are scheduled for May 21 and May 22, 2026.

According to records from the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA), Qingmi Technology, an affiliate of Xiaomi's supply chain, is challenging three of Bull Group's patents relating to track sockets. In addition, the Chinese subsidiaries of Siemens and ABB are also challenging Bull Group's track socket patents. Last year, Bull Group sued Siemens in the Nanjing Intermediate People's Court and the Beijing Intellectual Property Court for infringement of its invention patent for track sockets.

Why Track Sockets? Bull: Not First, But First to Scale

In 2023, the track socket designed by Siemens (China) Ltd. won an iF Design Award. However, it is Bull Group that truly brought track socket products to the ordinary consumer market. In 2021, Bull’s track socket was launched and became the No. 1 product in its category on Tmall within just three months, and achieved over 100 million yuan (US$14.3 million) in sales only eight months after launch.

Bull Group is not the first inventor of the track socket. The earliest known conceptual prototype of a household movable power track system was the Chinese patent CN94227995.6 filed by Xie Jing'an and Wang Weimei in 1994, but it lacked safety features and never reached commercialization. The German company Gira introduced the E2 series in 1998, which was a design classic for flush‑mounted fixed sockets rather than a movable track system. Therefore, the undisputed inventor of the modern, safe, commercially viable track socket for home use is Yang Choon of Singapore, who founded Eubiq in 2000, invented the Global Socket System (GSS), and secured PCT patents starting in 2003, establishing the C‑slot structure, internal busbars, and slidable adapters that define today's track socket.

Eubiq invented the modern track socket and positioned it as a luxury product for high-end buyers, while Bull Group is not the inventor but the one that successfully commercialized it for the mass market, turning it into a household essential in China. After Eubiq's early patents expired in 2023, Bull Group's own different track socket patents, which it had been applying for since 2020, became more important in the industry.

Xiaomi Faces Growing Patent Litigation in China

This is the second patent lawsuit Xiaomi has faced in China this month. On May 7, the Guangzhou Intellectual Property Court published a lawsuit in which Xiaomi’s instant water dispenser products were accused of patent infringement by a company based in Foshan, Guangdong (PRIP Wechat, May 7, 2026).

Xiaomi's product line covers nearly all consumer electronics and home appliances, directly competing with traditional home appliance makers. So it keeps getting into patent fights with traditional brands like Gree, Midea, Haier, Hisense, and Aux.

For example, after Midea sued Xiaomi for 65 million yuan (US$9 million) over three patents, it filed four more patent infringement lawsuits against Xiaomi (PRIP Wechat, April 7, 2026). AUX has filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Xiaomi with the Hangzhou Intermediate People’s Court (PRIP Wechat, May 18, 2026). Meanwhile, AUX and Xiaomi are also challenging each other’s patents (PRIP Wechat, March 14, 2026, PRIP Wechat, April 26, 2026). After Datang Mobile sued Xiaomi last year (PRIP Wechat, March 30, 2026), it filed four additional patent infringement lawsuits against Xiaomi in April (PRIP Wechat, April 9, 2026).

Conclusion

More and more Chinese companies are using patents to defend their market positions and are growing quickly through litigation.

During its IPO in 2018, Bull Group faced a RMB 990 million (US$138 million) patent lawsuit, which was China’s largest patent lawsuit that year by claimed damages. Jiangsu Tongling Technology accused Bull of infringing two socket patents. Bull ultimately succeeded in invalidating both patents.

Why did Tongling Technology take action to enforce its patents? The answer lies in the lessons it learned from patent litigation in the United States. Between 2004 and 2010, Tongling fought five lawsuits over six years in the U.S. It not only defeated Leviton, the leader in the GFCI industry, but also appealed to the CAFC after an ITC ruling of infringement — and won. That case is known as the "First China-U.S. Intellectual Property Case."