From defendant to litigant: how Chinese companies are navigating global patent disputes

In today’s increasingly interconnected global economy, patents have moved well beyond their traditional function as legal shields for inventions – they have become strategic assets that shape market access, influence competitive dynamics, and increasingly determine the outcome of commercial negotiations.

For Chinese enterprises, which have rapidly expanded from domestic to international markets over the past decade, patents are now the primary lever for both accelerated growth and risk management.

As Chinese companies continue to internationalise, their products and technologies are increasingly developed, manufactured, and sold across multiple jurisdictions. This global footprint exposes them to different patent systems and legal environments, creating a landscape where disputes are rarely contained within a single border. Instead, modern patent conflicts are complex, multi-jurisdictional wars where a ruling in one region can trigger a domino effect across a company’s entire global operation. In this context, global patent litigation has become a defining feature of Chinese companies’ global expansion – one that demands both sound defensive tactics and a proactive approach to intellectual property (IP) portfolio development.

The shift in the global IP landscape is rooted in a significant economic evolution. In 2025, China’s total import and export value reached RMB 45.47 trillion, a 3.8% year-on-year increase that marked nine consecutive years of growth. Exports, totalling RMB 26.99 trillion (up 6.1% year-on-year), underscore not just the sheer volume of Chinese trade but also its increasing sophistication in global trade. However, this commercial expansion has collided with a rising tide of trade protectionism and intensifying geopolitical tensions.

As Chinese companies deepen their globalisation, patent challenges from international competitors have transitioned from occasional hurdles to structural and systemic risks. Major foreign corporations increasingly employ patent litigation as a strategic barrier to prevent Chinese companies from gaining a foothold in domestic markets. For globalising Chinese companies, this means that IP risk is no longer an incidental cost of doing business; it is a fundamental characteristic of the international trade environment.

Recent data highlights the intensifying pressure on Chinese entities in foreign courts, particularly in the US. According to the 2024 Investigation of Overseas Intellectual Property Disputes Involving Chinese Enterprises, in the US, Chinese companies were involved in 1,227 new IP lawsuits. Of these, 587 cases – nearly half – were patent infringement disputes, involving 1,707 Chinese defendants. The financial stakes are significant, with average damages reaching approximately $2.8 million per case.

Notably, about two-thirds of these cases ended in settlements or voluntary dismissals – a pattern that underscores the extent to which patent litigation functions as a commercial negotiating instrument rather than a mechanism for obtaining a definitive judicial ruling.

In other major jurisdictions outside the US, the average damages awarded against Chinese companies in adjudicated cases have reached as high as €3.6 million.

These figures clearly illustrate the challenges and significant costs that Chinese companies face in overseas markets. Patent litigation is no longer merely a mechanism for resolving legal disagreements but also serves as a strategic instrument to exert financial and operational pressure and drive commercial negotiations. For the modern Chinese enterprise, the courtroom is an extension of the boardroom. Success in global trade now requires navigating a landscape where legal disputes are integrated into the very fabric of the bargaining process.

A definitive illustration of these shifting dynamics is the high-profile dispute between Samsung Display and BOE Technology. This ‘OLED war’ reflects not only the fierce competition within the high-tech display industry but also the increasingly sophisticated legal strategies Chinese companies now employ on the world stage.

The conflict began in December 2022, when Samsung Display launched an aggressive multi-front offensive in the US, filing a complaint with the United States International Trade Commission (ITC) under Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 and initiating multiple lawsuits in federal court. Samsung alleged that BOE’s OLED products infringe several of its core patents related to display technologies. Samsung also accused BOE of misappropriating trade secrets.

The ITC investigation that followed was extensive, involving detailed technical analysis, expert testimony, and multiple rounds of discovery proceedings. Facing this pressure, rather than adopting a purely defensive posture, BOE responded with a coordinated, global ‘counterstrike’ strategy. In 2023, BOE filed a series of patent infringement lawsuits against Samsung Display in China. In 2025, BOE escalated the pressure by initiating countersuits in the US, alleging that Samsung’s Galaxy Z Fold series infringed on BOE’s OLED patents.

In November 2024, the ITC administrative law judge issued an initial determination in the patent investigation, concluding that BOE had infringed three of the asserted patents but dismissing Samsung’s request for exclusion and cease-and-desist orders because it had failed to establish the existence of a qualifying domestic industry.

As the dispute progressed, the case moved towards a critical juncture. Just before the ITC was scheduled to issue a final determination in the parallel trade secret investigation, which had been due on November 17 2025, the parties announced that they had reached a comprehensive settlement. According to their public statements, the agreement provided for the withdrawal of all pending lawsuits and investigative proceedings across multiple jurisdictions, and likely included a patent cross-licensing arrangement, along with broader commercial cooperation between the two companies.

This outcome underscores a broader trend: even the most aggressive litigation is often a precursor to a negotiated commercial settlement. More importantly, it highlights the evolution of Chinese enterprises from reactive defendants to proactive negotiators. By wielding their own IP portfolios as offensive weapons, Chinese companies such as BOE are proving that they can secure a resolution to the dispute at the bargaining table by fighting to a standstill.

Cross-border patent litigation is inherently complex. Cases often run in parallel across multiple jurisdictions and can last for years, consuming vast financial and managerial resources. In this high-stakes environment, victory is determined as much by strategic decision-making as it is by legal merit.

One of the most critical decisions is selecting where to file a lawsuit. Jurisdiction selection is not just a legal matter but a strategic choice aimed at both maximising pressure on the opposing party and advancing plaintiffs’ interests. Companies should carefully weigh a range of factors, including litigation timeline, cost, evidentiary rules, and the availability of remedies.

The US is often a preferred forum for patent holders due to its extensive discovery process and the potential for significant damages awards. Through discovery, plaintiffs can access internal documents and technical information that would be difficult or impossible to obtain in other jurisdictions. However, these advantages come at the cost of high litigation expenses and long, complex proceedings.

Statistics indicate that the average duration for a patent infringement lawsuit in the US is approximately 2.4 to 2.5 years, and it is not uncommon for complex cases to span three to six years. During this period, attorney fees alone can range from several million to tens of millions of dollars.

Another option for patent holders is to initiate proceedings before the ITC. Unlike federal courts, the ITC typically completes investigations within 10 to 15 months. Although the ITC does not award monetary damages, it offers a powerful remedy: exclusion orders that prevent infringing products from entering the US. For companies that rely on global supply chains, such orders can be devastating, effectively cutting off access to one of the world’s largest markets.

In 2024, 24 new Section 337 investigations were initiated, involving 94 mainland Chinese companies, mainly in the electronics and electrical machinery industries.

In addition, the Unified Patent Court (UPC), which officially commenced operations on June 1 2023, has opened a new battlefield for patent disputes in Europe. The UPC system currently encompasses 18 EU member states, including major economies such as Germany, France, Italy, and the Netherlands. The UPC is known for its efficiency and its willingness to grant preliminary injunctions. Most significantly, once a preliminary injunction is granted, it can be enforced across all participating member states, potentially blocking a company’s products across a large part of the European market.

As a result, a growing number of patent owners are opting to litigate through the UPC. For example, in November 2025, the US patent licensing firm Sun Patent Trust filed suit at the UPC Hamburg Local Division against four brands under or associated with Geely – Zeekr, Lynk & Co, Lotus, and Smart – alleging infringement of its European patents.

Given these challenges, Chinese companies must move beyond reactive approaches and adopt a proactive, multi-layered framework for managing patent risks.

Prior to market entry, companies should conduct thorough freedom-to-operate analyses. This involves comprehensive patent searches and technical assessments to identify potential infringement risks, particularly in core technologies.

Companies should include IP indemnity clauses in supply chain agreements, ensuring that suppliers bear responsibility for the technologies they provide. This can significantly reduce exposure in the event of litigation.

When disputes arise, a rapid and coordinated response is critical. Companies should assemble experienced legal and technical teams to evaluate the situation from multiple angles. This typically involves three key lines of analysis:

• Claim mapping – comparing the accused product with the patent claims to assess infringement risk;

• Validity analysis – examining the validity and enforceability of the asserted patents; and

• Procedural analysis – identifying potential defences such as jurisdiction-specific requirements.

Based on this assessment, companies can decide their litigation strategy, including whether to actively defend the case or pursue settlement.

One effective defence strategy is to challenge the validity of the asserted patents. For example, in the US, defendants can either raise invalidity contentions in court proceedings or petition for inter partes review (IPR) before the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). In the Samsung Display and BOE disputes, BOE filed IPR petitions challenging the validity of Samsung’s patents, aiming to eliminate the legal basis for infringement claims.

Another important strategy is ‘design-around’. By modifying products to avoid infringing patent claims, companies can maintain their market access even in the face of potential injunctions.

That said, in many situations, settlement may be the most practical option for controlling costs and minimising business disruption. However, the timing and terms of a settlement should be carefully evaluated based on multiple factors, including the strength of the case and the company’s financial position. In some cases, settling too early may be seen as a sign of weakness and might invite further litigation risks.

At the same time, the best defence is a strong offence. Chinese companies should actively build their own high-quality global patent portfolios to serve as negotiating leverage. By securing high-quality patents in key markets, they can initiate counter-litigation and gain leverage in negotiations. This multi-front strategy – increasingly adopted by Chinese companies, as BOE’s case illustrates – demonstrates how coordinated legal action can shift the balance of power.

Effectively managing global patent litigation requires more than isolated legal actions. It calls for a coordinated and centralised approach. One widely adopted model is to appoint a ‘lead counsel’ – typically a firm with both international reach and deep familiarity with the client’s technology – to oversee cases across different jurisdictions.

This approach helps ensure consistency in legal arguments, technical explanations, and overall strategy. In multi-jurisdictional disputes, inconsistencies can be exploited by opposing parties and may undermine a company’s credibility. For example, statements made in Chinese courts must align with arguments presented in US or European proceedings.

The lead counsel works closely with local law firms in each jurisdiction to implement a unified global strategy. This ensures that litigation efforts support broader commercial goals, such as ensuring market access and securing favourable licensing terms.

Global patent litigation is no longer an outlier for Chinese enterprises; it has become an inevitable feature of international commerce. While these disputes bring significant challenges – including high financial costs, operational disruptions, and the fog of legal uncertainty – they also represent a critical milestone in a company’s evolution towards global leadership.

By moving beyond a purely defensive mindset, Chinese companies can transform legal friction into a source of competitive advantage. The transition from being a reactive defendant to a sophisticated global litigant marks the maturity of China’s innovation sector. As Chinese firms continue to master the ‘rules of the game’, they are doing more than just defending their products – they are actively shaping the global innovation landscape.

In the end, the ability to navigate complex global patent conflicts is not just a legal necessity; it is a strategic capability that secures a company’s role as a resilient, long-term player in the global market.