The fight for market share in the smart vacuum cleaner industry keeps UPC busy

More and more of these practical, self-navigating devices are finding their way into households around the globe. And as the devices themselves become more common, so too does related litigation. Six infringement claims concerning smart vacuum cleaners are now before the Unified Patent Court. The last three claims reached the local divisions in The Hague and Munich at the end of August and the beginning of September respectively. At the centre of the dispute are the two Chinese manufacturers, Roborock and Ecovacs.

According to market analysis, both companies lead the smart vacuum cleaner segment. Analysts have valued the global volume of the segment at $12.5 billion in 2025. By 2035, global turnover could reach $30.9 billion. According to data analyst IDC, 24.12 million smart vacuum cleaners were shipped globally in 2025. Roborock, Ecovacs, Dreame, Narwal Robotics, and Dyson most recently shared 40% of the market between them.

A market in flux

The market has been in a state of upheaval since the former market leader and US manufacturer iRobot ran into financial difficulties at the end of 2025. iRobot was eventually taken over by its long-standing contract manufacturer in China, PICEA Robotics.

The two current market leaders from China are now feeling the effects of this too. NPEs and other holders of fundamental patents also want a share of this growing business. Roborock and Ecovacs have not only filed lawsuits against each other at the UPC, but are facing off in US and Chinese courts. In Europe, entire product lines are reportedly under attack. If the UPC confirms the infringement, a Europe-wide injunction looms. This makes UPC lawsuits particularly attractive for consumer goods manufacturers.

An eye for an eye

In February 2026, Ecovacs filed an infringement claim against its Chinese competitor at the Düsseldorf local division (case ID: UPC-CFI-0000604/2026). Ecovacs claims that Roborock infringes its EP 3 808 512. The patent protects a robot localisation method, robot, and storage medium.

The second panel of the Düsseldorf division will hear the case. It comprises presiding judge Berenice Thom, Marije Knijff, Ingo Rinken and technically qualified judge Anders Hansson.

Ecovacs filed the claim with the assistance of a team from Jones Day led by partner Gerd Jaeckel. The Paris office is also involved.

Meanwhile, Roborock is defending itself with a team from Vossius & Partner led by partners Thure Schubert and Georg Rauh. Vossius’s patent attorneys are also on the team. The firm’s Dutch cooperation partner, Brinkhof, does not appear to be involved.

Half a year after Ecovacs filed its claim, Roborock struck back on 31 August. The new claim concerns the latter’s EP 4 011 266, which protects a sealing structure and smart cleaning apparatus. Roborock accuses its competitor of infringing the patent.

The first panel of the Munich local division will hear the case, presided over by judge Matthias Zigann. Thomas Adocker and Tobias Pichlmaier complete the panel (case ID: UPC-CFI-0003142/2026).

For this case, Roborock has retained partner Steffen Steininger and his team from Hogan Lovells Cadwalader. Ecovacs’ advisers in this claim are not yet officially known but a team from Winston Taylor is highly likely. Lawyers and patent attorneys from Winston Taylor and Taylor Wessing are representing Ecovacs in various other claims brought by the NPE Papst Licensing at the UPC and Munich Regional Court.

Papst Licensing launches second round

Papst Licensing, an NPE based in southern Germany, first triggered the disputes over smart vacuum cleaners in Europe in 2025 with two claims against Roborock and Ecovacs. However, these lawsuits are unrelated to the dispute between the two competitors themselves.

On 3 June last year, Papst Licensing filed an infringement claim against Ecovacs with the Munich local division (case ID: UPC_CFI_491/2025). The claim relates to EP 3 494 446, which protects a method and apparatus for controlling an autonomous mobile robot. The claim mainly targets models in Ecovac’s Deebot series. The first panel of the division will hear the case on 13 October. Matthias Zigann will preside over the case, with fellow judges Walter Schober, Tobias Pichlmaier, and technically qualified judge Alain Dumont. Ecovacs, meanwhile, has filed two counterclaims for revocation.

Also on 3 June, Papst Licensing filed another claim against Roborock based on its EP 3 030 943. The patent protects a method for operating a floor-cleaning device and floor-cleaning device (case ID: UPC_CFI_492/2025). Roborock filed a counterclaim seeking revocation of the related patent.

First judgment in August

In both disputes, Papst Licensing has also filed claims at Munich Regional Court, but recently suffered a setback in its dispute with Roborock at the UPC. In mid-August, the Munich local division dismissed Papst Licensing’s infringement claim relating to EP 943. The claim had been directed against the sale of Roborock’s devices in the S8, Q, Qrevo and Saros series.

Papst Licensing followed up a few days later by filing a further claim in early September — this time with the local division The Hague (case ID: UPC-CFI-0003153/2026). The German NPE alleges infringement of its EP 3 374 834, which protects a subdivision of maps for robot navigation. Margot Kokke will hear the case as presiding judge, along with Robert van Peursem and Vincenzo Carni.

According to court documents, the NPE purchased the related patents in 2024 from the insolvent RobArt GmbH. Papst Licensing is represented in all lawsuits by lawyer Hannes Jacobson of CBH Rechtsanwälte and patent attorney Jonas Weickert from Thum & Partner.

In the new lawsuits, Roborock is relying on German lawyer Tobias Hessel and his team from Clifford Chance and a mixed team from Vossius & Partner.

For its defence against Papst Licensing, Ecovacs is once again relying on a team from Winston Taylor. Dutch partner Sebastien Versaevel is leading the team. Wim Maas is also involved. Gisbert Hohagen from Taylor Wessing is primarily responsible for the national cases. However, it was associate Yingyi Liu who established contact with Ecovacs and brought Winston Taylor on board.

Kärcher also trying its luck

German high-pressure cleaner manufacturer Kärcher also jumped on the litigation bandwagon against Chinese smart vacuum cleaners in mid-August and sued two Tineco companies at the Düsseldorf local division (case ID: UPC-CFI-0003016/2026). The first panel, presided over by judge Ronny Thomas and assisted by Thomas Adocker and Jule Schumacher, will hear the case.

Tineco is an independent brand of smart household appliances belonging to the Ecovacs Group. Kärcher alleges infringement of its EP 3 079 553 patent, which protects floor-cleaning machines. It is not known which products may be affected.

Kärcher initiated the proceedings with its regular advisers from the German full-service law firm Gleiss Lutz. Counsel Mischa Krumm is named as the lead representative. The patent had previously been filed by the Stuttgart-based patent attorney firm Hoeger Stellrecht & Partner. It is considered certain that they are also involved in the UPC proceedings. The patent attorneys and Gleiss Lutz lawyers regularly collaborate on litigation matters. Sebastien Versaevel from Winston Taylor is once again representing Ecovacs subsidiary Tineco.