Named where the client has authorized it, anonymized where not. Two overseas invalidations that cleanly ended a platform complaint and an examination obstacle, a design patent infringement suit, an Amazon complaint resolved, a cross-border patent dispute settled, a trademark case won at first instance and on appeal, and two patent navigation studies on the official project record.
A Xiamen technology company received an infringement warning letter from a major US automotive manufacturer. We compared the asserted patents against the product and judged the risk real, then examined the validity of the patents themselves and found prior art capable of undermining their patentability.
Outcome — Armed with that analysis, the client negotiated a favorable settlement and avoided the loss—and then retained us for a comprehensive patent risk early-warning review of the wireless charging field.
Chinese client vs. US patent holder
The client held five registered trademarks in Class 25 (footwear and apparel). A seller was offering goods bearing a similar mark through an e-commerce marketplace storefront, and the platform failed to act promptly after receiving the cease-and-desist letter. We sued the infringing seller and the platform together.
Outcome — The court ordered the infringer to stop and pay damages, and ordered the platform to close the store in question and bear joint liability. The other side appealed; the judgment was upheld at second instance.
Chinese client vs. domestic infringer + e-commerce platform
Three-phase induction motors are sized for peak load, then spend most of their working life at light or no load—power factor falls and a great deal of energy is wasted. Commissioned by a motor manufacturer in Fuzhou, we took the field apart patent by patent: where the Chinese and foreign filings sit, who holds them, which routes are already fenced off, and where the research is actually heading—improved connection and winding structures, starting and braking technology, structural changes for heat dissipation and high-temperature tolerance, forced-air cooling with a fitted fan unit that is easy to service on site, and rare-earth permanent-magnet motor materials.
Outcome — The study set the direction for the client's own R&D—motor NVH improvements, energy-efficiency improvements for the IE4 and IE5 series, and the patent filings that came out of it. INTENOVA is named on the project record as the patent navigation service provider.
Client: a motor manufacturer in Fuzhou
A solenoid valve inside diagnostic and treatment equipment is a small component with a long patent trail. We broke the technology down, mapped where the Chinese and foreign filings sit, went through the litigation the field has already produced, identified the points where claims overlap and infringement becomes possible, and read the direction of competitors' patent portfolios—the trend, the research hotspots, and the technical barriers already standing.
Outcome — The deliverable was a patent filing strategy built on who already owns what in the field rather than on gut feeling, together with a written assessment of the IP risk that travels with electric fluid controllers sold across borders. INTENOVA is named on the project record as the patent navigation service provider.
Our client holds a design patent for a folding fan. We found a product on sale through more than 10 storefronts on Pinduoduo, Taobao, Taote and other platforms whose appearance was closely similar to the patented design and fell within its scope of protection. Once retained to enforce the patent, we investigated, collected and secured more than 20 items of evidence and filed suit at the Guangzhou Intellectual Property Court, seeking an order to stop the infringement, destruction of the production tools and molds, and damages; during the proceedings we twice made supplementary submissions of more than 10 further items of evidence.
Outcome — After two years of evidence-gathering and first-instance proceedings, the court held that the design of the accused product fell within the scope of protection of the patent at issue and that the two defendants had jointly infringed in their manufacturing, and ordered them to stop manufacturing and selling immediately from the date the judgment takes effect and to pay damages.
Xiamen Jianpin Electronic Technology Co., Ltd. vs. Huizhou Jiangren Precision Technology Co., Ltd. and Xiaomi Technology Co., Ltd.
In 2025 our client received a complaint on Amazon's US marketplace and retained us to represent it in the negotiation. We advised approaching the other side first to try for a settlement, and made repeated calls and sent letters—all of which went unanswered.
Outcome — We then advised the client to put the whole record of our efforts to reach the other side before Amazon, and on that basis the negative account health record left by the complaint was removed.
Xiamen Yuanchuangda Brand Co., Ltd.
A platform complaint was filed against our client's product, the complainant asserting infringement of a UK registered design for a waist bag. We judged that registered design vulnerable to invalidation and advised the client not to spend effort on the infringement comparison, but to go straight at it with an invalidation action.
Outcome — After several rounds of back-and-forth, the UK authority issued a decision invalidating the design.
Xiamen Wohe Hengfeng Technology Co., Ltd.
Our client's Canadian industrial design application received an office action in which the examiner cited a UK registered design, calling the novelty of the application into question. Our patent attorneys assessed that cited design as itself vulnerable to invalidation, and we moved to invalidate it.
Outcome — The other side filed no counter-statement, the UK authority issued a decision invalidating the design, and our client's Canadian industrial design application went on to registration.
Xiamen Anglun Industry & Trade Co., Ltd.
