Chinese Companies in European Patent Litigation

The European front in global patent disputes

This opening article examines Europe’s growing role in the global patent strategies of Chinese companies, with particular emphasis on recent UPC cases involving Chinese parties as claimants and defendants, including disputes between Chinese competitors. It is the first in a series exploring the practical implications for Chinese businesses of enforcing European patents and defending against patent claims in Europe.

Chinese companies’ rapidly growing investment in European patents is changing both their opportunities and their exposure in European patent litigation. Of the 201,974 patent applications received by the EPO in 2025, 10.9% originated from the People’s Republic of China, moving China ahead of Japan (10.5%) and into the top three countries of origin for the first time.¹ This growth is expanding the pool of European rights available to Chinese businesses for enforcement, while their increasing commercial presence in Europe leaves them more exposed to competing portfolios. European patent strategy is therefore becoming an increasingly important component of the global portfolio management, licensing and litigation strategies of Chinese businesses.

Chinese companies become major players in European patent litigation

Our earlier article analysed the growing presence of Chinese parties at the UPC; some of its key findings are briefly summarised here.² It found that many Chinese defendants operated in sectors characterised by intensive patent licensing and enforcement activity, particularly telecommunications, consumer electronics and connected devices, and identified repeated enforcement campaigns against companies including Xiaomi, Transsion, Huawei, OPPO, vivo, BYD, TCL and Hisense. Increasingly, however, Chinese companies are also substantial European patent owners with their own enforcement programmes. Our review of the UPC’s public register identified 97 infringement actions filed in 2025 involving at least one Chinese party, approximately 38% of the 253 visible actions reviewed. Eighty-four involved a Chinese defendant, twenty a Chinese claimant, and seven involved Chinese parties on both sides.[2] Together, these figures reflect a broader shift: Chinese companies continue to face patent actions in Europe, but are increasingly turning to European courts to enforce their own patent portfolios.

Enforcing patent rights through the Unified Patent Court

JingAo Solar v Chint/Astronergy, UPC_CFI_425/2024, illustrates affirmative UPC enforcement by a Chinese patent owner against a Chinese competitor. The case was handled at first instance by the Munich Local Division and concerned a solar-cell patent. The Court found infringement, rejected the counterclaim for revocation and granted injunctive and ancillary relief concerning Germany, France, Italy and the Netherlands.³ The parties reached a global settlement.⁴ The case shows a Chinese patent owner obtaining substantive multi-country relief through a German UPC division.

The more recent Yangtze Memory Technologies’ global enforcement campaign against US-based Micron concerning NAND technology demonstrates how national and UPC proceedings can be coordinated. On 18 September 2026, the Munich Regional Court granted YMTC two first-instance injunctions based on German utility models.⁵ In parallel, YMTC is asserting three European patents against Micron before the UPC’s Düsseldorf Local Division, alongside proceedings in the United Kingdom, the United States and China. ^{[5] [6]} The campaign shows how a Chinese patent owner can combine fast national remedies with the prospect of broader UPC relief to create leverage in a strategically important global technology dispute.

Trade fairs, evidence gathering and procedural risk

The dispute between Chinese robot-vacuum manufacturers Ecovacs and Roborock highlights both litigation between Chinese competitors and the procedural opportunities and risks associated with European trade fairs. Their contest now comprises six UPC infringement actions, alongside litigation in Germany, China and the United States.⁸ In March 2026, the Court of Appeal upheld the revocation of an ex parte inspection and evidence-preservation order that Ecovacs had obtained in relation to Roborock products displayed at the IFA trade fair in Berlin. The Court emphasised the applicant’s heightened duty to disclose fully and accurately all material facts relevant to necessity and proportionality.⁷ The dispute illustrates the risks surrounding European product launches and trade fairs, including evidence gathering and urgent procedural measures. These opportunities and risks will be examined in a forthcoming article in this series.

Abbott v Sinocare, UPC_CFI_624/2025 and UPC_CoA_899/2025, illustrates the exposure that can arise from plans directed at European markets. On 30 March 2026, the Court of Appeal rejected Sinocare’s appeal and left in place a preliminary injunction concerning a Unitary Patent. Importantly, the Court held that manufacturing and preparing products in China for sale in UPC contracting states could create the requisite likelihood of damage within UPC territory, even if the acts causing that damage occurred outside it. The decision demonstrates how European distribution plans and market-facing partnerships can expose Chinese companies to the UPC’s reach. ⁹

Strategic considerations for Chinese companies operating in Europe

These cases show Chinese businesses becoming increasingly active participants in the European patent system, with their portfolios, products, subsidiaries and commercial relationships placing them on either side of fast-moving disputes. The forthcoming articles will examine the practical decisions arising before and during such disputes: when to choose the UPC rather than a German national court; how service of process in China and security for costs can shape timing and economics; how to prepare for and respond to patent disputes arising at European trade fairs; when European subsidiaries, authorised representatives, distributors or other supply-chain participants may provide a jurisdictional link or become enforcement targets; and how Chinese groups should prepare for the developing cross-border reach of European courts.

Across these topics, the central theme will be the same: increased patent ownership creates enforcement opportunities, but growing commercial integration with Europe also creates exposure. Chinese companies that align portfolio management, licensing, product launches, corporate structures and litigation readiness early will be better placed to use Europe proactively rather than respond only after an action has defined the battlefield.

Author: Sebastian Fuchs - Partner, Rechtsanwalt, UPC Representative
‍