Rumors circulating on Chinese social media platforms claim that Viltrox is being sued by Nikon over a dispute regarding Z-mount lens licensing. Here is the translation:
Here is what AI was able to find about this lawsuit:
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).
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).
On platforms like Weibo (Chinese Twitter), Xiaohongshu (Little Red Book), and Bilibili, the discussion around this lawsuit is likely centered on three main fears. Below is a summary of the sentiment you will find in Chinese photography circles:
“Will my lens become a brick?” (变砖风险):
The biggest fear for Chinese users is that Nikon will release a camera firmware update (e.g., for the Z6 III, Z8, Zf) that intentionally breaks compatibility with Viltrox lenses.
Social Media sentiment: “Don’t update your camera firmware until we know if the Viltrox protocols are blocked.”
Comparison to the “Canon RF Ban”:
Users are drawing parallels to when Canon legally forced Viltrox to stop selling RF-mount lenses.
Social Media sentiment: “First Canon, now Nikon? Is the era of affordable third-party lenses over?” “Nikon was supposed to be the ‘open’ mount!”
“Authorized” vs. “Cracked” Protocols:
There is debate over whether Viltrox actually had a license. Previously, Viltrox claimed to have reverse-engineered the Z-mount legally. This lawsuit suggests they did not have an official license for the specific invention Nikon is citing.
Speculation: Some users suspect this is Nikon forcing Viltrox to pay an official “entrance fee” to become a licensed partner (like Tamron or Sigma), rather than trying to kill them off completely.
| Feature | Detail |
| Date of Hearing | March 2, 2026 (Upcoming) |
| Venue | Shanghai Intellectual Property Court |
| Plaintiff Strategy | Suing for “back-pay” royalties on a recently granted patent. |
| Consumer Impact | High risk of future firmware incompatibility; potential sales halt of current Viltrox Z lenses. |
| Key Precedent | Similar to Canon’s aggressive stopping of third-party RF lenses in 2022/2023. |
