Apple just won a 14-year legal fight in China. On June 10, 2026, the Shanghai High People’s Court threw out every claim in Xiao-I Corporation’s lawsuit against Apple. Xiao-I said Siri copied its 2004 chatbot patent. It asked for about $1.4 billion in damages.
The court disagreed — but not for the reason you might expect. Judges confirmed Xiao-I’s patent is real and valid. They just found that Siri doesn’t actually use it the way the patent describes.
That distinction is the whole story. Here’s how it played out.
A Patent Older Than the iPhone
Xiao-I filed Chinese patent No. 200410053749.9 in August 2004. China granted it in July 2009 — two years before Siri existed.
The patent covers a specific chatbot design. Software reads what a user types. It decides whether that input is a plain-language request or a structured command. Then it routes the input accordingly.
Xiao-I used this design in its own early chatbot, Xiaoi Robot. When Apple launched Siri on the iPhone 4S in 2011, Xiao-I saw the resemblance. It sued in 2012.
14 Years, Two Trips to China’s Supreme Court
Few patent cases run this long. Here’s the timeline in plain terms.
| Year | What happened |
|---|---|
| 2004 | Xiao-I files its chatbot patent |
| 2009 | China grants the patent |
| 2012 | Xiao-I sues Apple over Siri |
| 2013–2016 | Apple challenges the patent’s validity; rulings swing back and forth |
| 2020 | China’s Supreme People’s Court restores the patent, reversing a lower court |
| 2020 | Xiao-I refiles, seeking ~$1.4 billion and an injunction on iPhones 7–14 Pro Max |
| 2022–2024 | Apple challenges validity again; the case goes to trial |
| March 2026 | The Supreme People’s Court upholds the patent’s validity a second and final time |
| June 2026 | The Shanghai court dismisses every infringement claim |
Between 2013 and 2016, the case bounced between China’s patent office and two levels of courts. Beijing’s high court sided with Apple in 2015 and revoked the patent. Shanghai’s court then dropped the infringement suit — no valid patent, no case.
Xiao-I appealed. In 2020, the Supreme People’s Court reinstated the patent. That cleared the way for a fresh infringement suit, filed that same August.
The $1.4 Billion Claim That Got Cut in Half
Xiao-I’s 2020 filing sought roughly RMB 10.1 billion — about $1.4 billion.
China’s courts charge filing fees based on how much a plaintiff is asking for. A claim that large comes with a fee near RMB 50.5 million. Xiao-I paid only RMB 25.55 million — half of what the full claim required.
The court didn’t dismiss the case over this. It simply scaled the claim down to match what Xiao-I had actually paid for: about RMB 5.1 billion, or $700 million.
To justify even that number, Xiao-I built a damages model from Apple’s public financial filings:
- It isolated the share of Apple’s net sales tied to the accused iPhone models.
- It applied that share to Apple’s operating profit, estimating a profit pool of roughly RMB 169 billion.
- It argued its patent deserved a 3.8% royalty on that pool — about RMB 64.3 billion in alleged gains, well above the reduced claim.
Apple pushed back on multiple fronts. It argued Xiao-I’s evidence — built entirely from testing Siri’s outputs without access to Apple’s source code — could only guess at Siri’s internal design, not prove it. Apple also pointed to earlier chatbot systems, like SmarterChild and the Catacomb project, as prior art. Separately, Apple claimed an outside litigation funder, not Xiao-I, had actually paid the court fees. The court didn’t need to rule on that funding question, since it dismissed the case on other grounds.
Why the Court Sided With Apple
Chinese patent claims break into discrete “technical features.” A product must match every single one to count as infringement. Xiao-I’s claim listed six features. Siri matched four.
What Siri had: The court found Siri lets users go back and forth in a question-and-answer format, and that its software works as a chatbot under the patent’s definition. That covered four of the six features.
What Siri lacked:
- An “instant messaging platform.” The patent describes two or more parties — human or machine — exchanging real-time messages across a network, each on their own end. A single user talking to their own phone doesn’t fit that structure. It’s a different way to enter input, not a two-party exchange across a network.
- A filter that separates “formatted” commands from natural language. The patent describes a filter that recognizes fixed, system-preset commands and routes them to a query or game server, sending everything else to an AI server. The court — citing the Supreme People’s Court’s own reading of the patent — found that user-created shortcuts on iPhones don’t count, since users define them rather than the system presetting them. And because Xiao-I’s outside-only testing couldn’t show which server actually processes Siri’s shortcuts internally, there was no proof Siri routes commands the way the patent requires.
Missing even one required feature defeats an infringement claim under Chinese patent law. Siri missed two. That ended the case — and the billions in requested damages never came into play.
In a related case, Apple had separately asked the court to formally confirm it wasn’t infringing. The court agreed there too. It did, however, reject Apple’s request for about $280,000 in legal costs.
Validity and Infringement Are Different Questions
This case is a clean example of a distinction that trips people up. China’s Supreme People’s Court confirmed — twice, in 2020 and again in March 2026 — that Xiao-I’s patent is valid. Apple tried and failed twice to invalidate it.
But none of that decided whether Siri actually infringes it. Those are separate legal questions in Chinese patent practice, resolved in separate proceedings. After 14 years, this was the first time any Chinese court ruled on infringement itself. The verdict: valid patent, no infringement.
What Happens Next
Xiao-I says it will appeal to the Supreme People’s Court. A second-instance appeal typically carries its own filing fee — likely another RMB 25.55 million, matching what Xiao-I already paid.
Xiao-I’s Nasdaq-listed stock (AIXI) dropped about 8% after the ruling. The company calls the decision flawed and says it will keep pursuing the case.
Why This Case Matters Beyond Apple and Xiao-I
- Claim language decides software patent cases. This case hinged on two narrow definitions — what counts as an “instant messaging platform” and a “formatted sentence” — not on how similar Siri and Xiaoi Robot seem in spirit.
- Black-box testing has real limits. Without source-code access, Xiao-I could describe what Siri does but couldn’t prove how it works internally. That’s a recurring problem in software infringement cases worldwide, not just in China.
- Big damages claims carry real costs. China’s claim-scaled filing fees mean plaintiffs can’t demand astronomical damages for free. Xiao-I’s own funding shortfall cut its claim in half before the merits were even decided.
- Litigation funding is under new scrutiny. Apple’s claim that outside investors improperly funded the lawsuit didn’t decide the case, but it signals that funding arrangements are becoming a live issue in Chinese courts too.
Frequently Asked Questions
Did Apple infringe Xiao-I’s patent? No. The Shanghai High People’s Court ruled on June 10, 2026 that Siri lacks two of the six technical features required by Xiao-I’s patent claim.
Is Xiao-I’s patent valid? Yes. China’s Supreme People’s Court upheld its validity in a final, non-appealable ruling in March 2026 — the second time it has done so since 2012. Validity and infringement are separate questions, and this case resolved only the second one.
How much did Xiao-I originally seek in damages? Roughly RMB 10.1 billion (about $1.4 billion) in its 2020 filing. Because Xiao-I underpaid the required filing fee, the court reduced the claim under review to about RMB 5.1 billion ($700 million).
Is the case over? Not entirely. Xiao-I plans to appeal the infringement ruling. The patent’s validity, however, is fully and finally settled.
How long has this dispute lasted? Xiao-I first sued Apple in June 2012. The June 2026 ruling came roughly 14 years later — one of the longest-running patent disputes in Chinese court history.
Sources: Xiao-I Corporation (NASDAQ: AIXI) SEC filings and press releases (March and June 2026); Shanghai High People’s Court, Case Nos. (2020) Hu Zhi Min Chu No. 7 and (2022) Hu Zhi Min Chu No. 3; China IP Law Update; IPHouse; PRNewswire.