Lost the lawsuit claiming 80 million just five days after obtaining the patent. Who is the mastermind behind the "extortion" of Unitree Technology?

On the Chinese New Year's Eve in 2026, the robots of Unitree Technology took the stage of the Spring Festival Gala once again. More than twenty H1 humanoid robots completed high - difficulty actions such as super high - altitude flips and high - speed cluster formation changes, and sparred on stage with martial arts actors, once again going viral across the internet.

Just 9 days after the Spring Festival Gala ended, on February 25th, the long - awaited patent litigation case faced by Hangzhou Unitree Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Unitree Technology") before its IPO finally reached its conclusion.

The Supreme People's Court rendered a final judgment in the dispute over the infringement of the invention patent right between Hangzhou Luweimei Daily Chemical Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Luweimei Company") and Unitree Technology, dismissing all of Luweimei Company's appeal requests and upholding the judgment that Unitree Technology did not constitute infringement. At the same time, the Supreme Court severely condemned Luweimei Company's litigation behavior as "violating the principle of good faith" in the judgment.

This case has attracted wide attention since its first court session in August 2025 due to the "mysterious" background of the plaintiff and the timing of the lawsuit. At that time, Unitree Technology, the leading domestic humanoid robot enterprise, had just completed its transformation into a joint - stock company, and its IPO process was steadily advancing. Luweimei Company, which initiated the lawsuit, is a small - scale enterprise with a registered capital of only 550,000 yuan, mainly engaged in daily chemical retail, and seemingly has no connection with the field of robot technology.

With the final judgment of the Supreme People's Court, behind this much - watched business war of "the weak challenging the strong", a "patent litigation player" named Zhou Jianjun and the business empire under his control gradually emerged.

Claim for 80 million yuan against Unitree dismissed, a third lawsuit on the way

Hangzhou Luweimei, which initiated the lawsuit, is quite low - key and mysterious.

Hangzhou Luweimei Daily Chemical Co., Ltd., established in 2005, shows nothing special from the business registration information. According to the National Enterprise Credit Information Publicity System, its registered capital is only 550,000 yuan. Its business scope covers traditional retail businesses such as online food sales and daily necessities sales, and the number of insured employees in 2024 was only 2. The legal representative, Zhou Jianjun, holds 90% of the shares, and Xu Yan holds 10%.

This small enterprise mainly engaged in daily necessities presents a cross - border feature in patent layout. Tianyancha data shows that the company holds two patents. One is a patent for "an electronic dog" applied for in 2016, which was authorized in 2018, and the inventor is Zhou Jianjun. The other is a patent for "a simultaneous interpretation intelligent system for meetings" applied for in 2023, which is currently in the substantive examination stage, and the inventors are Zhou Jianjun and Zhou Chan.

Image source: Canva

According to the specification, the invention patent of the "electronic dog" involves a home intelligent robot device, mainly solving the technical problems in the existing technology that home robots have relatively single functions and cannot meet people's increasingly diverse needs. It provides an electronic dog that imitates biological pets, can perform multiple monitoring and control functions, and can also cooperate with the owner for entertainment.

It is equipped with a high - definition camera, a gas sensor, a microphone, and a speaker on the head and neck. A controller unit, a wireless communication unit, a storage unit, and a power supply unit are installed inside the torso. When users are away from home, they can remotely connect to the electronic dog through a mobile phone or computer to keep track of the situation at home.

This coincides with Unitree Technology's business. However, as of now, there is no record of any product sales related to the "electronic dog" of Luweimei Company in the public information.

The claim amount and the details of the accusations put forward by Luweimei Company in the lawsuit pushed the drama of this "sniper war" to a climax.

Luweimei claimed in the lawsuit that Unitree Technology sold the alleged infringing products on a large scale through e - commerce platforms. The cumulative sales volume of its official flagship store and another major platform exceeded 8,000 units, with a total sales amount of up to 78.2804 million yuan. Based on this, the plaintiff claimed that, calculated at a product profit margin of 30%, Unitree Technology's illegal profit reached 23.4841 million yuan. On this basis, it requested the application of punitive damages, and calculated the total claim amount to 70.4523 million yuan at three times, while reserving the right to claim five - fold damages.

Image source: Canva

In addition, the plaintiff also accused Unitree Technology of leveraging its goodwill in the publicity of "the world's first consumer - grade bionic robot" on its official website. The performances of its robotic dogs were watched by hundreds of millions of people in the media, and the exhibitions attracted tens of thousands of visitors, all of which were considered to have infringed on its market reputation. The plaintiff also claimed that the use of "inferior technology" in the other party's products led to a 60% reduction in performance, causing it direct losses of more than 200 million yuan.

On September 26, 2025, the Hangzhou Intermediate People's Court rendered a first - instance judgment, dismissing all of Luweimei Company's litigation requests. In response, Luweimei filed an appeal. After entering the second - instance procedure, the litigation amount of Luweimei changed again and again.

During the first - instance court session on August 26, 2025, on the one hand, Luweimei insisted on claiming compensation of 500 yuan, and on the other hand, it claimed that "subject to the audit by the people's court".

On November 24, 2025, Luweimei submitted an "Application for Advance Compensation" to the court, requesting the court to order Unitree Company to make an advance compensation of 80 million yuan. The calculation method was "the sales amount of infringing products of 600 million yuan × the industry average profit of 15% = the illegal profit of 90 million yuan". It believed that the claimed 80 million yuan of advance compensation was lower than the illegal profit, which was legal and reasonable.

On November 27, 2025, Luweimei submitted a "Letter for Clarifying the Litigation Object" to the court, adjusting the claim amount to 500 yuan.

The Supreme People's Court pointed out in the second - instance trial that Luweimei Company did not actually manufacture or sell the patented products after obtaining the patent on June 25, 2025, and its business scope was not related to the patented technology. Just 5 days later, it filed a lawsuit against Unitree Technology. In the first - instance trial, it claimed compensation of 500 yuan but requested an audit. In the second - instance trial, it first proposed a claim of 80 million yuan and applied for advance compensation, and then adjusted it back to 500 yuan the next day. Its behavior was "calculating and capricious", actually aiming to avoid litigation fees and impose additional litigation pressure on Unitree Technology. This behavior violated the principle of good faith, and the court condemned it.

In February 2026, the Supreme People's Court rendered a final judgment in this case, dismissing all of Luweimei Company's appeal requests and upholding the first - instance judgment that Unitree Technology did not constitute infringement.

Even earlier, in a case where Luweimei sued Unitree Technology for another model of robotic dog, the A2, the Hangzhou Intermediate People's Court made a more severe determination.

The first - instance judgment on February 4, 2026, not only dismissed Luweimei's infringement accusations but also determined that Luweimei constituted malicious litigation. The court pointed out that Luweimei chose to file a lawsuit during Unitree Technology's IPO listing guidance period and applied for on - site investigations and evidence preservation, attempting to exert an adverse impact through the patent infringement lawsuit. During the court session, Luweimei clearly stated that it would continue to file multiple lawsuits for different product models, which also indicated that "it was not truly safeguarding its rights but had improper purposes other than litigation for rights protection".

As for Zhou Jianjun, he has filed a retrial application with the Supreme People's Court for the two lost cases. The third patent infringement lawsuit initiated by him in the name of Luweimei is expected to be heard in early May 2026.

The company under the inventor also has a listing plan and has sued 20 banks

In fact, Luweimei, which initiated the lawsuit sniper war, is just the most insignificant part of Zhou Jianjun's asset map. The "electronic dog" patent used to sue Unitree Technology was not initially held by Luweimei.

Tianyancha shows that this "electronic dog" patent was initially held by Zhejiang Jianlin Electronic and Electrical Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Jianlin Electric"). On February 7, 2025, Jianlin Electric transferred the patent to Hangzhou Lianhao Technology Trading Co., Ltd. On July 11, Lianhao Technology transferred it to the current Luweimei.

Image source: Tianyancha

Through this series of operations, the daily chemical company, which had no connection with the robot business originally, has transformed into the owner of the core patent of the "electronic dog".

Zhou Jianjun said in an interview with Southern Metropolis Daily that Jianlin Electric under his control was unable to repay the loans owed to the bank due to poor management, its accounts were frozen, and it was unable to pay the employees' salaries. To raise funds, Zhou Jianjun transferred the invention patent of the involved electronic dog to Lianhao Technology with a good credit record, hoping that Lianhao Technology would use the patent as collateral for a loan. If the loan was successful, Lianhao Technology would then "infuse blood" into Jianlin Electric's daily operations through investment. However, this plan failed to materialize.

According to the official website of Jianlin Electric, it is a company that conducts research and development on electrical technology for biological intelligent control servo - control bionic robots, uses Internet wireless protocols to connect IoT intelligent devices, and integrates the large - scale platform of the smart city mobile data center.

It currently holds multiple patents in various industries and claims to "own invention patents that can subvert traditional industry equipment, invention patents for drones, and two other invention patents! It also has more than 10 software product copyrights." It also has the ambition to be listed and aims to "strive to transfer to the Growth Enterprise Market for listing as soon as possible!"

Image source: Company's official website

According to the official website, the address of this company is Room 612, Building C, Meidu Plaza, No. 789, Moganshan Road, Gongshu District, Hangzhou, while the address of Luweimei, which sued Unitree Technology, is Room 614, Building C, Meidu Plaza, Gongshu District. The two are only one office apart.

The legal representatives of both Jianlin Electric and Luweimei are Zhou Jianjun, who holds 99.5631% and 90% of the shares respectively.

Tianyancha shows that Jianlin Electric has a total of 192 patent information items, and most of the inventors are Zhou Jianjun. The patents cover the metaverse, currency payment, invoices, etc., and the involved industries include hospitals, banks, etc.

Image source: Tianyancha

Suing Unitree Technology is not the only patent litigation involving Zhou Jianjun. Tianyancha shows that Jianlin Electric has a total of 56 judicial cases, 66.07% of which are as the plaintiff, and 28.57% of the case causes are disputes over infringement of invention patent rights, and the defendants are mostly banks.

Further analysis shows that Jianlin Electric has sued as many as 20 banks, including the China Construction Bank and multiple branches and sub - branches of the Construction Bank in Hangzhou, Shanghai, and Beijing, such as the Hangzhou West Lake Sub - branch, the Hangzhou Xiaoshan Sub - branch, and the Hangzhou High - tech Sub - branch of the China Construction Bank, as well as the Zhejiang Xiaoshan Rural Commercial Bank and the Wenxin Sub - branch of the Hangzhou United Rural Commercial Bank. The reasons for the lawsuits are all disputes over infringement of invention patent rights or disputes over infringement of computer software copyrights.

Image source: Tianyancha

Moreover, Jianlin Electric has