I. Core Facts: Copycat Popular Model Ordered to Pay ¥2 Million in Damages

On June 25, 2026, NIU Technologies announced its victory in the design patent infringement lawsuit against a Dongguan vehicle enterprise after the Shanghai High People’s Court upheld the first-instance judgment. The court confirmed that the defendant’s TDR005Z electric two-wheeler infringed the design patent of NIU’s UQi model. The Dongguan manufacturer and relevant co-defendants were ordered to cease all infringing acts and pay compensation of RMB 2 million, which NIU has fully received through enforcement procedures.

The litigation against the Dongguan firm lasted more than two years. The first-instance judgment was issued in August 2025, and compensation was fully enforced in March 2026. Established in 2016, the Dongguan company mainly targets the food delivery electric vehicle market. A distinctive feature of this case is that both the manufacturer and relevant retail sellers were listed as co-defendants.

II. Industry Plague: Low-Cost Infringement Under the "Public Mold Ecosystem"

Why are counterfeits and infringements rampant in the electric two-wheeler industry? There are prevalent underlying reasons. On one hand, original design entails heavy costs. Full R&D for a brand-new vehicle model, covering market research, industrial design and mold opening, costs millions of yuan and takes over one year to complete. On the other hand, the long-standing public mold ecosystem facilitates infringement. Universal molds circulate cheaply among dozens or even hundreds of factories; manufacturers only need to tweak minor parts such as headlights and fenders to launch new products rapidly.

In addition, the threshold for identifying design patent infringement remains relatively high in judicial practice. Counterfeiters merely adjust subtle body lines to evade the finding of substantial similarity. Coupled with complicated evidence collection and lengthy litigation cycles, the industry is trapped in a chronic dilemma: low cost for infringement yet high barriers to rights protection.

III. Court Ruling: Minor Adjustments Do Not Eliminate Overall Similarity

The first-instance court held that the accused infringing product and the patented product are both electric vehicles of the same category. Comparative analysis shows the infringing design shares nearly identical components, layout, body proportion and structural connections with the patented design. Only negligible minor differences exist, which account for a tiny proportion of the overall product appearance. From the perspective of an ordinary consumer with general knowledge and recognition ability, the two products bear no substantial difference in overall visual impression. The court confirmed design similarity, ruling the disputed design falls within the scope of the plaintiff’s patent protection. The Shanghai High People’s Court affirmed this conclusion on appeal.

IV. Sustained Crackdown: NIU Technologies’ Tough Anti-Counterfeiting Campaign

The lawsuit against the Dongguan manufacturer is only one part of NIU’s comprehensive anti-infringement efforts. Since 2023, NIU has filed 31 infringement lawsuits with total claimed damages exceeding RMB 14 million. Cumulative compensation from effective judgments and settlement agreements has surpassed RMB 5.6 million, and two responsible persons have received criminal penalties.

Counterfeit products mainly copy NIU’s best-selling lines including U, UQi and N1S. Respondents include numerous small and medium-sized vehicle manufacturers and offline retail stores, most of whom have fulfilled compensation obligations or reached settlement terms.

V. Industry Trend: Heavy Damage Awards Reshape the Market Landscape

Around the same period, Segway-Ninebot concluded its design patent lawsuit against Huodi Electric Vehicles. Starting May 2024, Huodi, a brand under two Jiangmen tech firms, launched suspected copycat vehicles that infringed design patents of Segway-Ninebot’s M series, Orion series and Q series.

In early 2026, the court rendered a final judgment confirming infringement of Huodi’s N95 and Qilin models. On May 28, 2026, the Q90 model was also ruled infringing in the first instance. Total compensation for the three models reached RMB 3.67 million.

Landmark rulings such as NIU’s victory over the Dongguan enterprise and Segway-Ninebot’s win against Huodi are dismantling the industry’s long-standing low-cost counterfeiting model. Substantial damage awards drastically raise the cost of infringement. With judicial enforcement gaining real teeth, copycatting as a shortcut to market share is becoming increasingly unviable.

VI. Key Case Takeaways

The core takeaway for the whole industry is clear: public molds do not serve as a get-out-of-jail-free card for infringement. While universal molds may circulate among multiple factories, this does not authorize manufacturers to produce vehicles incorporating designs protected by others’ design patents.

Design patents protect specific, original design schemes rather than abstract molds themselves. If products manufactured with public molds bear an appearance substantially similar to a valid third-party patent, the production still constitutes infringement.

Judicial practice is redefining the value of original design. As heavy compensation awards become standard, business models built on copying will face mounting legal risks. For the electric two-wheeler sector, this delivers a positive signal: innovators receive legal protection, copycats bear severe consequences, paving the way for sound and sustainable industrial development.