I. Final Verdict: Triple Punitive Damages + Full-chain Liability

On August 25, 2026, CNr reported the final judgment of the design patent infringement dispute in which Ninebot sued the copycat “Mechanic II” electric bicycles produced by Miracle Bull. The second-instance court rejected all appeal requests and upheld the original judgment, ordering Dongguan Miracle Bull Vehicle Industry Co., Ltd., its affiliated enterprises and the actual controller Mr. Wei to pay a total of over RMB 2.49 million in compensation to Ninebot.

II. Court Finding: Clear Infringement Intent and Egregious Circumstances

The court found that the infringing parties including Miracle Bull had clear subjective intent to infringe, deliberately free-riding on the market reputation of Ninebot’s hit products, and had long operated based on infringing products. With egregious and sustained infringement circumstances, triple punitive damages were applied in accordance with law.

Since 2024, Ninebot has discovered through regular market monitoring that multiple models under the Miracle Bull brand were suspected of copying the appearance design of its product series and infringing multiple design patents. Ninebot carried out comprehensive evidence collection and preservation, and safeguarded its rights through multiple channels including civil litigation and administrative enforcement.

III. Legal Basis for Punitive Damages: Willful Infringement + Serious Circumstances

According to Article 71 of the Patent Law, effective as of June 1, 2021, for willful patent infringement with serious circumstances, the amount of compensation may be determined at one to five times the amount calculated based on the right holder’s losses, the infringer’s profits or the multiple of licensing fees. On May 1, 2026, the Interpretation on the Application of Punitive Damages in Civil Intellectual Property Infringement Cases issued by the Supreme People’s Court came into force, further clarifying core issues such as the criteria for “willful” and “serious circumstances” and the calculation base.

The application of triple punitive damages in this case means that the court determined the final compensation by tripling the base amount of infringing profits or losses. The function of punitive damages is no longer limited to compensating the right holder’s economic losses, but imposes severe punishment on malicious and repeated infringement.

IV. Full-chain Liability: Piercing the Shield of Corporate “Limited Liability”

A more important breakthrough of this case lies in the expansion of the scope of liability. Compared with the traditional single-mode of only holding production and sales enterprises liable in patent infringement cases, this case realizes full-chain and full-coverage liability for intellectual property infringement.

The judgment not only held the producing and selling enterprises of infringing products liable in accordance with law, but also included the actual controller of the involved enterprises and the issuer of the infringing product’s quality certificate into the liability system, ordering the qualification-providing enterprise to bear joint and several compensation liability.

According to Tang Yu, senior partner of Beijing Dongwei Law Firm, in the past some infringing parties evaded liability by splitting corporate entities, exploiting corporate limited liability or affiliating with third-party qualifications. This precedent helps close the loophole for such operations.

From a legal basis perspective, according to Article 1168 of the Civil Code, where two or more persons jointly commit a tort causing damage to others, they shall bear joint and several liability. The inclusion of the actual controller in the liability system essentially pierces the protection of corporate “limited liability” for infringing acts, so that the parties who actually plan and lead the infringement can no longer hide behind the corporate veil.

V. Industry Background: The “Common-mold Copying” Chaos in Two-wheeled Electric Vehicles

For a long time, the chaos of appearance copying and homogeneous counterfeiting in the electric two-wheeler industry has been repeated despite repeated prohibitions. Some enterprises abandon forward research and development, directly copy mature original designs, and seize the market by low cost and low price.

The long-existing “common-mold ecosystem” in the industry facilitates infringement: a set of universal molds can be circulated at low cost among dozens or even hundreds of factories. Enterprises save millions in R&D and mold-opening costs, and can quickly launch new models with only minor adjustments to details such as headlights and fenders.

In previous similar cases, the scope of liability was limited, and key subjects such as actual controllers and qualification providers often escaped accountability, resulting in excessively low infringement costs and persistent copying and counterfeiting.

VI. Case Implications

Implication 1: Punitive damages are becoming normalized. With the implementation of the Supreme People’s Court judicial interpretation on punitive damages on May 1, 2026, the application rules for punitive damages in the intellectual property field have become clearer. The application of triple damages sends a clear signal to the market: malicious infringers will face not just “making up for losses”, but legal costs several times the profits from infringement.

Implication 2: Full-chain liability closes the “shell game” escape route. The inclusion of actual controllers and qualification providers in the liability system means that gray operations such as “shell company swapping” and “affiliated qualification borrowing” are losing their room to operate. Corporate infringement is no longer a low-cost game of “close down one and open another after paying compensation”.

Implication 3: From individual case wins to systematic rights protection. In addition to the final judgment of this case, Ninebot’s design infringement lawsuits for the Mechanic I and M-series models have all been ruled infringement established and punitive damages applied at first instance. Both cases are now in the second-instance procedure, forming a normalized and systematic rights protection pattern. As leading enterprises begin to systematically pursue infringement liability, business models that rely on copying as a shortcut will face increasingly high legal risks.