Photo: Unitree
Unitree Robotics has secured win in its high-profile patent dispute with Hangzhou Luweimei Daily Chemical Co., Ltd, according to news released earlier this month.
On September 26, the Zhejiang Hangzhou Intermediate People’s Court delivered a first-instance ruling in favor of Unitree, rejecting all claims made by Luweimei. The court determined that Unitree did not infringe on Luweimei’s patent, marking a significant victory for the company as it prepares for its initial public offering (IPO).
Luweimei has announced its intention to appeal the court’s decision.
The case began in July 2025, when Luweimei, a small-scale retailer with just two employees as of 2024, accused Unitree of infringing its invention patent (Patent No. CN106384471) related to an “electronic dog”. Luweimei claimed that despite issuing multiple infringement notices, Unitree continued to expand production, thus committing willful infringement. The plaintiff further argued that the accused product used subpar technology, resulting in a performance decrease of over 60%, which allegedly damaged Luweimei’s market reputation, reduced its market share, and caused direct losses exceeding 200 million yuan.
Luweimei's demands included:
An injunction requiring Unitree to stop manufacturing, selling, or offering for sale the “Unitree G02” robot dog, and the destruction of all infringing products, semi-finished goods, and production molds.
Compensation for Luweimei’s economic losses, initially set at 500 yuan, with the final amount to be determined through a court audit of the infringement and patent usage fees.
Punitive damages, with Luweimei seeking 3-5 times the profits Unitree allegedly gained from the infringement, to be determined by the court.
Reimbursement of reasonable legal costs, including attorney, notarization, and appraisal fees.
A public statement from Unitree on its official website and in China Intellectual Property News for 30 consecutive days to mitigate the negative effects of the alleged infringement.
Unitree denied all allegations, stating that Luweimei's claim of a 200 million yuan loss had no factual basis. The company further argued that the lawsuit was malicious, aiming to exploit Unitree’s reputation for improper gain. Unitree requested that the court dismiss all of Luweimei’s claims.
The court dismissed the infringement claims after analyzing two key technical differences:
Firstly, the court found a substantial difference between the core technical features of the two products. Luweimei’s patent required the robot dog to be covered with “color-changing biomimetic fur” to enhance realism. However, the Unitree G02 robot dog only featured detachable accessories such as vests and lion dance costumes. The court concluded that these accessories differed significantly in structure (fur being a fixed covering, while accessories are removable) and function (fur for realism, accessories for thematic decoration), and thus did not constitute the same or equivalent technical feature.
Secondly, the court found that the “swinging tail"” mechanism described in the patent was absent from the accused product. Despite submitting various pieces of evidence, Luweimei could not demonstrate that the Unitree G02 robot dog contained the "swinging tail" feature, nor could it establish a connection between the alleged infringing components and the patented technology. This lack of the required technical feature fundamentally undermined the legal basis of Luweimei’s infringement claims.
As a result, the court ruled that Unitree did not infringe on Luweimei’s patent and rejected all of Luweimei's claims.
The case has set a new precedent for patent litigation in China. While patent lawsuits in China often involve lengthy procedures to confirm patent validity, this case was resolved in just about two months. Legal professionals have praised the court's swift decision-making, which could have favorable implications for Unitree as it moves forward with its IPO.
