Sued for 80 Million, Unitree Recovered Only 80,000: 7 Ways to Counter Patent Trolling

Sued for 80 Million, Unitree Recovered Only 80,000! 7 Countermeasures Against Patent Trolling

A company selling daily necessities obtained an "electronic dog" patent and, on the 5th day after acquiring it, sued robot dog maker Unitree Technology. It first claimed 500 yuan, then suddenly changed its demand to 80 million yuan at second instance, and the next day changed it back in writing to 500 yuan.

The Supreme People's Court characterized it in its final ruling with eight words: "meticulous calculation, capriciousness." What is even more striking is that Unitree won all three lawsuits, spent 210,000 yuan on attorney fees alone, and the court ordered the other side to pay only 80,000 yuan.

"Do not let the dishonest profit," this phrase is now turning the cost calculus of patent trolling upside down. Below, I will discuss three parts: how to spot trolling at a glance, how to counterattack when targeted, and how to avoid crossing the line yourself.

6 Signals of Trolling: Together They Amount to Systematic Sniping

From the Unitree case and five typical cases from the Supreme People's Court, six danger signals can be distilled:

1. 1. Assignment followed immediately by suit: The patent was transferred and sued on 5 days later, while the plaintiff never produced or sold anything, and its business scope had nothing to do with the technology.
2. 2. Targeting the IPO: The first lawsuit came less than 20 days before the other party's listing counseling filing, specifically during the inquiry period and prospectus update period.
3. 3. Refusal to provide the product: The product was publicly on sale and available for purchase, yet only website images and photocopies of videos were submitted, followed by an application for evidence preservation.
4. 4. Abnormal damages claim: Claiming the other party profited tens of millions, yet seeking only 500 yuan, then jumping to 80 million yuan at second instance before changing back to 500 yuan.
5. 5. Serial follow-on suits: Filing suits one by one against multiple models based on the same patent, while threatening to "continue suing other models."
6. 6. Pattern of misconduct: The legal representative had previously handled more than 20 patent lawsuits, none of which were won, with some claims reaching tens of billions.

One or two points may be coincidence; all six together basically amount to systematic trolling.

7 Countermeasure Paths, Two of Which Are New Benefits

Companies that are targeted need not only passively defend; there are seven paths in the toolbox:

1. 1. Invalidation of patent, always the first move. Unitree filed invalidation twice, and in March 2026 the CNIPA declared the patent entirely invalid.
2. 2. Counterclaim in the original action for malicious litigation. Article 233 of the Interpretation of the Civil Procedure Law provides the basis, allowing consolidation of cases with the same facts.
3. 3. After the prior case concludes, file a separate "dispute over liability for damage caused by malicious intellectual property litigation" to seek full compensation.
4. 4. Declaratory judgment of non-infringement. If a warning letter is received and the other side does not sue, take the initiative, and jurisdiction is also favorable to oneself.
5. 5. Responding to preservation. A publicly sold product does not equal evidence that is easily destroyed; argue for rejection of the other side's preservation application.
6. 6. Being sued during the listing period. Disclose promptly and include risk warnings, while also keeping a record of the disclosure burden.
7. 7. Keep a full record throughout. Attorney fee contracts and invoices, invalidation receipts, evidence of lost orders, and preservation interest.

Two new benefits deserve emphasis: counterclaims now have a clear basis, so one is no longer "left only to take it"; and costs of invalidation proceedings can also be claimed, as established in the Unitree case and the finished can case, which many people did not know before.

80,000 vs 210,000: How Much You Recover Depends on How Much You Document

Unitree won, and the 80,000 yuan was only symbolic damages. By contrast, in another Supreme People's Court case involving a dashcam, the malicious litigant was ordered to pay 1 million yuan, including "loss of expected profits caused by refused orders."

Where is the difference? Under the principle of full compensation, how much can be awarded depends on how much you have documented. Attorney fees, invalidation fees, property preservation losses, refused orders, missed bidding qualifications—only with contracts, invoices, and records do they make it into the compensation list.

"To counter malicious litigation, invalidate earlier, counterclaim earlier, and keep systematic records; that is worth far more than waiting for the judgment and then settling accounts." — He Zigang | Intellectual Property Lawyer | Aipunajie · Mili · Najie (20 years of practice, operating three entities with OPC + AI digital employees)

Self-Check: Do Not Let Yourself Become the Next Troll

For hard-tech companies preparing for listing or financing, patent due diligence should add one item: do not rush to sue over patents acquired by assignment.

If the rights basis fails the "three tests," do not sue: whether it exists, whether it is stable, and whether it is thick enough. Suing just days after assignment, combined with no own implementation and a target in a critical financing or listing period, with all three elements present, is basically a high-incidence area for a presumption of malice. The damages claim also should not be severely inverted relative to the scale of infringement.

On the other hand, it must be made clear: normal rights enforcement, even if one ultimately loses or withdraws the case, will not easily be found malicious. In the monk fruit case, the Supreme People's Court explicitly stated "prudence and restraint," so companies need not give up eating for fear of choking.

In the seven years since the Supreme People's Court Intellectual Property Court was established, there have been 13 judicial penalties, 18 criminal clues transferred, and 8 findings of malicious litigation. The numbers are not large, but the signal is strong: the cost calculus of patent trolling is being recalculated.

If you have been targeted or nearly crossed the line, welcome to discuss in the comments. Follow the public account "Najie Mili"; the next article will discuss the 90-day patent response manual for the IPO counseling period.

This article represents only the author's personal views and does not constitute legal advice. For analysis of specific cases, welcome to contact us.

He Zigang | Intellectual Property Lawyer | Aipunajie · Mili · Najie