The information you have appears to be sourced from Chinese corporate litigation databases (such as Qichacha 企查查, Tianyan Cha 天眼查 or the Shanghai Court’s public docket. These are the primary sources for such “breaking” legal news on Chinese social media before they hit mainstream news sites.
Case Number: (2025) Hu73 Zhi Min Chu No. 182
Meaning: “Hu73” (沪73) confirms the venue is the Shanghai Intellectual Property Court, a specialized court for high-stakes tech patent battles. “Zhi Min Chu” indicates it is a first-instance civil intellectual property case.
The Defendants:
Shenzhen Viltrox Technology Co., Ltd. & Shenzhen Jueying Technology Co., Ltd.: Jueying is the parent manufacturing company, while Viltrox is the consumer-facing brand. Nikon is targeting both to ensure any judgment covers the factory and the brand.
Shanghai Qiuhong Photographic Equipment Co., Ltd.: This is likely a local distributor or retailer. In Chinese IP litigation, it is a common tactic to sue a local seller alongside the manufacturer to establish jurisdiction in a specific city (in this case, Shanghai) rather than the defendant’s home turf (Shenzhen).
2. The Core Dispute: “Royalties for Provisional Protection Period”
The cause of action listed—“Dispute over royalties for the provisional protection period of an invention patent” (发明专利临时保护期使用费纠纷—is highly specific and reveals Nikon’s strategy.
What it means: Under Chinese Patent Law, the “provisional protection period” is the window between when a patent application is published and when it is formally granted.
The Implication: Nikon is likely claiming that Viltrox was using a specific Nikon invention (likely related to Z-mount autofocus protocols or lens communication) while Nikon’s patent was pending. Now that the patent is granted, Nikon is demanding back-pay (royalties) for the lenses sold during that “pending” window.
Why this matters: This is often a precursor to a wider ban. If Nikon wins, they prove Viltrox is infringing, which gives them leverage to demand a full licensing deal or a “Cease and Desist” (similar to what Canon did to Viltrox regarding RF mount lenses).
This makes me wonder if the Z8 3.0 update that broke third party adapters/communication might have been Nikon sending a warning shot that they can disable the outsiders at will if they don't play by the rules.
Nikon is on a crazy hot streak of goodwill towards their customer base. This will be very interesting to follow.
Man when the details of this come out, I hope it doesn’t lead to Nikon pulling a Canon with their cease-and-desist letters. IMO Nikon would lose a lot of their competitive advantage vs. Canon…
RoamingScott wrote:
Nikon is on a crazy hot streak of goodwill towards their customer base. This will be very interesting to follow.
For sure. This would be a great way to erode that.
EB-1 wrote:
Viltriox can develop their own mount if they don't want to pay Nikon.
EBH
Or they and all other third parties could just support brands that have the wisdom to have a royalty free mount because this is in the interest of users and the brand.
It makes me wonder what, exactly, was Viltrox doing that Sirui, TTArtisan, Meike, et al weren't? It definitely feels like Viltrox is the biggest brand of them, and possibly the easiest to squeeze and make an example out of.
I suspect Nikon’s strategy is to open the mount for low end lenses, while viltox are putting out 35/85 f1.2 and 135 f1.8 that are competing with Nikon’s, and they are hiring a lot of influencer to advertise their products on social media - I don’t think their rendering qualities are close at all with Nikon, but a lot of folks can’t tell or don’t care, and as a consequence, they would have settled for a viltrox instead of Nikon when they consider these lense
RoamingScott wrote:
It makes me wonder what, exactly, was Viltrox doing that Sirui, TTArtisan, Meike, et al weren't? It definitely feels like Viltrox is the biggest brand of them, and possibly the easiest to squeeze and make an example out of.
It depends on what the infringement was. Some brands were using the old SLR protocols essentially through a mount adapter and maybe others are doing something natively. Or maybe it was just a matter of time. Defending IP against the most voluminous offenders makes logical sense.
They should not push Viltrox into building cameras. That would be a game they cant win.
A excellent Viltrox 85mm 2.0 EVO with clicked and de-clicked aperture ring and programmable function button, all in the size of a Nikon 50 1.8s, that's innovative, and not a copy. Same for the excellent small, lightweight Viltrox 14mm Air, I can live without aperture ring on a super wide angle.
Viltrox acquired too much knowledge to capitulate. They would certainly push into building cameras.
Looking for an alternative to an oversized and overprized Nikon Z8.
Better listen to your customers. I really like having an aperture ring.
Viltrox does listen.
Personally I don’t want to buy stuff that is not properly licensed from an ethical point of view, but also because these products can stop working after every software update fron Nikon. It is a risk. And then I can’t blame Nikon for doing so.
Sauseschritt wrote:
I seriously hope you are joking.
Of course I'm not. Either you license or you design around other's patents.
If Viltriox is so huge I'm sure they can develop their own camera system. It's just consumer camera gear, not like spending many billions of Euros landing on other planets.
bernardl wrote:
Tamron also has many Z mount AF lenses.
Yes, but unlike Viltrox, Nikon must have strong business relationships and agreements with Tamron, given that Nikon sells Tamron lenses (the cheaper f/2.8 zooms) under the Nikon brand.
Damn. This will likely result in them holding back on releasing and/or selling lenses for Z mount for the time being. Every lens sold is a potential risk..
I hope they strike a licensing deal. Don’t mind if I have to pay a bit more for Viltrox lenses, they’re very cheap for what they are anyway. But I want a 35mm f1.4 PRO 😭
or the Shanghai Court’s public docket. These are the primary sources for such “breaking” legal news on Chinese social media before they hit mainstream news sites.