Winson Global
2026-06-24 13:01
If new energy vehicles defined the tech trend of the past decade, humanoid robots are undoubtedly becoming the next trillion.
As technology companies around the world race to position themselves in the robotics industry, a lawsuit over core technology has quietly begun.
In June 2025, Tesla sued former engineer Zhongjie Li in court. Unlike previous high‑profile cases focused on autonomous driving technology, this dispute centers on the Optimus humanoid robot project, which Elon Musk has high hopes for.
In Tesla’s view, this is not merely a story of an employee leaving to start a business, but a battle to protect trade secrets that could shape the competitive landscape of the future robotics industry.
According to public information, Li had participated in the R&D of Tesla’s Optimus robot, with a focus on technologies related to the dexterous robotic hand. As one of the most critical components of a humanoid robot, the mechanical hand is not only responsible for grasping and manipulation, but also directly affects the robot’s future ability to enter industrial manufacturing, logistics warehousing, and even home service scenarios.
In its complaint, Tesla alleged that Li downloaded and saved a large amount of technical materials related to the robot project before leaving the company, and shortly after his departure, he founded a robotics startup. Subsequently, some of the product solutions introduced by that company showed a high degree of similarity to Tesla’s relevant technical approaches.
In Tesla’s view, this trajectory of "departure – startup – rapid product launch" is no mere coincidence.
Li, for his part, denied the allegations, asserting that his entrepreneurial project was based on independent R&D and did not involve any misuse of Tesla’s trade secrets.
Once the case came to light, it quickly drew widespread attention in the tech industry.
The reason is that, compared with traditional manufacturing, the humanoid robotics sector is still in a phase of rapid technological iteration. Many key technologies have yet to form mature standards, and competition among companies often involves not just product competition, but also competition in R&D speed and technological accumulation.
A company may spend several years and hundreds of millions of dollars to develop a core technology, while another company, if it could improperly obtain the relevant results, might be able to close the gap or even overtake it in a much shorter time.
Therefore, for tech companies, trade secrets can sometimes be even more important than patents.
Filing a patent means disclosing the technology, whereas trade secrets allow a company to maintain its technological advantage over the long term. Robot control algorithms, sensor parameters, test data, engineering debugging experience, and the like often become the core assets that companies most want to protect.
In fact, in recent years, the frequency of trade secret litigation brought by U.S. tech companies against former employees has been steadily increasing.
From Waymo’s dispute with Uber in autonomous driving, to Tesla’s multiple lawsuits in the new energy vehicle sector, and now to the humanoid robotics track, companies are increasingly inclined to use legal means to protect their technological achievements and send a clear signal to the industry: talent can flow, but trade secrets must not flow with them.
For Chinese companies, this case is equally worth noting.
As more and more Chinese enterprises participate in global technology competition, many have begun to set up R&D centers overseas and actively attract top international talent. However, high‑end talent often also entails higher intellectual property risks.
In practice, the risks faced by companies do not necessarily come from intentional infringement. Sometimes, merely lacking a sound compliance mechanism can expose a company to trade secret disputes.
For example, when recruiting a core R&D person from a competitor, has the company explicitly required that the employee not bring any materials from the former employer? Has the company established a record of the technical sources during the R&D process? Have key employees received intellectual property compliance training? These seemingly minor issues often become decisive factors in litigation.
Humanoid robots are seen by many as the next industrial revolution after smartphones and new energy vehicles. The Tesla v. Li case reflects the inevitable competition and rivalry that accompany the rapid development of emerging industries.
Technological innovation requires talent mobility, but trade secrets also need clear boundaries of protection.
For Chinese companies that are going global and competing internationally, finding the balance between attracting talent, driving innovation, and managing legal risks may be the greatest takeaway from this case.
