STOCK TITAN

Xiao-I Corporation Provides Update on First-Instance Rulings in Patent Litigation Against Apple; Company Intends to Appeal to the Supreme People's Court

(Neutral)
Tags

Xiao-I (NASDAQ:AIXI) reported first-instance rulings in its patent litigation with Apple over Siri technology before the Shanghai High People's Court.

The court dismissed Shanghai Xiao-I's infringement claims and ruled specified iPhones with Siri are outside the patent scope, while rejecting Apple's RMB 2 million litigation-expense claim. Xiao-I will appeal to the Supreme People's Court; patent validity remains finally upheld.

Loading...
Loading translation...

Positive

  • Supreme People's Court previously upheld subject patent validity as final
  • Apple's RMB 2 million litigation-expense claim was rejected
  • Company plans appeal to further assert intellectual property rights

Negative

  • Shanghai court dismissed all Xiao-I Siri patent infringement claims
  • Court ruled specified iPhones with Siri outside patent protection scope
  • Uncertainty over appellate outcome and potential financial compensation

News Market Reaction – AIXI

-51.12%
-51.12% Session close to close

In the Jun 22 session, AIXI declined 51.12%, reflecting a significant negative market reaction.

Data tracked by StockTitan Argus on the day of publication.

Market Context

The stock dropped -51.1% in the session following this news. A negative reaction despite positive pa...
Analysis

The stock dropped -51.1% in the session following this news. A negative reaction despite positive patent-validity history fits Xiao-I’s pattern of sharp moves around structural or legal news. The first-instance loss on infringement heightens outcome risk, and any appeal to the Supreme People’s Court could materially shift sentiment again.

Key Figures

Apple fee claim: RMB 2 million Patent number: 200410053749.9 First-instance judgment date: June 10, 2026 +1 more
4 metrics
Apple fee claim RMB 2 million Compensation for litigation expenses Apple sought but court rejected
Patent number 200410053749.9 Invention patent titled "A Chat Robot System" at issue in dispute
First-instance judgment date June 10, 2026 Date Shanghai High People's Court issued first-instance rulings
Prior validity ruling date March 31, 2026 Previously disclosed final ruling upholding patent validity

Historical Context

5 past events · Latest: Jun 03 (Positive)
Pattern 5 events
Date Event Sentiment 24h Move Catalyst
Jun 03 Nasdaq compliance Positive -10.5% Regained full compliance with Nasdaq continued listing standards after prior deficiencies.
May 06 ADS ratio change Negative -3.2% Announced ADS ratio change equivalent to a one-for-twenty reverse ADS split.
Apr 23 Planned ADS split Negative -29.6% Outlined plan to implement reverse ADS split via ADS ratio change to maintain listing.
Mar 31 Patent validity win Positive +18.2% Supreme People's Court upheld validity of core patent in Apple dispute as final.
Dec 23 Nasdaq deficiencies Negative +1.5% Received Nasdaq deficiency notices for minimum bid price and market value of public float.

24h Move is the share-price change in the day after each event; other market factors may also have contributed.

Pattern Detected

Recent news for AIXI often triggers sizable moves, with both positive and negative headlines sometimes met by sharp, non-intuitive price reactions.

Key Terms

variable interest entity, invention patent, confirmation of non-patent-infringement, attorney fees
4 terms
variable interest entity regulatory
"between its variable interest entity, Shanghai Xiao-I Intelligent Network Technology"
A variable interest entity (VIE) is a company structure where one party controls another company’s operations and economic outcomes through contracts or special arrangements instead of owning a majority of its voting shares. For investors, VIEs matter because the controlling party’s financial results, debts and risks can appear in the controller’s reports even though ownership looks separate, so understanding VIEs helps assess true exposure, governance limits and transparency—like spotting a puppet controlled by strings rather than direct ownership.
invention patent regulatory
"Invention Patent Infringement action (Case No. (2020) Hu Zhi Min Chu No. 7): The court"
An invention patent is a time-limited legal right that gives its holder the exclusive ability to stop others from making, using, selling or importing a specific new device, process or product; think of it as a temporary lock around an idea. For investors it matters because patents can protect a company’s revenue and growth by keeping competitors out, create licensing income, and add value to a business — but they can also be challenged in court or expire, which affects risk and valuation.
confirmation of non-patent-infringement regulatory
"Confirmation of non-patent-infringement action (Case No. (2022) Hu Zhi Min Chu No. 3):"
A confirmation of non-patent-infringement is a legal statement or finding that a product, process, or service does not violate another party’s patent rights. Think of it like getting a clear pass from a property owner that you are not trespassing; for investors it matters because it reduces the risk of costly lawsuits, injunctions, or forced changes to a product that can disrupt sales, increase expenses, or hurt future earnings.
attorney fees regulatory
"RMB 2 million in compensation for reasonable litigation expenses, including attorney fees,"
Attorney fees are the costs a company pays to lawyers for legal advice, representation, or court work, and can include hourly charges, flat fees, or amounts ordered by a judge to be paid after a case. They matter to investors because large or unexpected legal bills reduce profits and cash on hand, similar to an unexpected repair bill for a homeowner, and can signal ongoing legal risk or future expense that affects a company’s value.

AI-generated analysis. How Rhea-AI works. Not financial advice.

See more from StockTitan in Google Search and AI answers. Adds StockTitan as a preferred source · opens Google
Add on Google

SHANGHAI, June 19, 2026 /PRNewswire/ -- Xiao-I Corporation (NASDAQ: AIXI) ("Xiao-I" or the "Company"), a leading developer of AI solutions, provided a material update on the patent-related litigation between its variable interest entity, Shanghai Xiao-I Intelligent Network Technology Co., Ltd. ("Shanghai Xiao-I"), and Apple Inc. and its affiliated entities (collectively, "Apple") before the Shanghai High People's Court.

On June 10, 2026, the Shanghai High People's Court issued first-instance judgments on two parallel cases:

  • Invention Patent Infringement action (Case No. (2020) Hu Zhi Min Chu No. 7): The court dismissed all litigation claims filed by Shanghai Xiao-I, in which the Company alleged that Apple's Siri technology infringed Shanghai Xiao-I's invention patent titled "A Chat Robot System" (Patent No. 200410053749.9).
  • Confirmation of non-patent-infringement action (Case No. (2022) Hu Zhi Min Chu No. 3): The court ruled that the specified iPhone models equipped with Siri do not fall within the protection scope of the subject patent. The court also rejected Apple's claim for RMB 2 million in compensation for reasonable litigation expenses, including attorney fees, translation fees and notarization fees.

As previously disclosed on March 31, 2026, the Supreme People's Court of the People's Republic of China issued a final and binding second-instance ruling upholding the validity of the subject patent and rejecting Apple's application to have the subject patent declared invalid. The validity of the patent remains final and non-appealable. The Supreme People's Court's prior ruling addressed only the validity of the patent. The present proceedings concern whether Apple's Siri products fall within the scope of the patent claims and therefore constitute infringement.

The Company is disappointed with the first-instance rulings on infringement findings. The Company respectfully disagrees with the factual and legal findings reflected in the first-instance judgments and believes substantial grounds exist for appeal. The Company intends to formally lodge appeals with the Supreme People's Court within the statutory time limit. The Company will vigorously assert its legitimate intellectual property rights and interests in accordance with applicable laws.

While Xiao-I remains confident in the merits of its case, there can be no assurance as to the ultimate outcome of the appellate proceedings. There is no guarantee that the Company will be awarded any financial compensation or obtain a favorable ruling on appeal. Investors are strongly encouraged to conduct their own due diligence and review all relevant information before making investment decisions.

Xiao-I will keep shareholders and the public informed of any material further developments in a timely manner.

About Xiao-I Corporation

Xiao-I Corporation is a leading cognitive intelligence enterprise in China that offers a diverse range of business solutions and services in artificial intelligence, covering natural language processing, voice and image recognition, machine learning, and affective computing. Since its inception in 2001, the Company has developed an extensive portfolio of cognitive intelligence technologies that are highly suitable and have been applied to a wide variety of business cases. Xiao-I powers its cognitive intelligence products and services with its cutting-edge, proprietary AI technologies to enable and promote industrial digitization, intelligent upgrading, and transformation. For more information, please visit: www.xiaoi.com.

Forward-Looking Statements

This press release contains forward-looking statements as defined by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Forward-looking statements include statements concerning plans, objectives, goals, strategies, future events or performance, and underlying assumptions and other statements that are other than statements of historical facts. When the Company uses words such as "may," "will," "intend," "should," "believe," "expect," "anticipate," "project," "estimate" or similar expressions that do not relate solely to historical matters, it is making forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements are not guarantees of future performance and involve risks and uncertainties that may cause actual results to differ materially from the Company's expectations discussed in the forward-looking statements. These statements are subject to uncertainties and risks including, but not limited to, the following: the Company's ability to achieve its goals and strategies, its future business development, financial condition, and results of operations, product and service demand and acceptance, reputation and brand, the impact of competition and pricing, changes in technology, government regulations, fluctuations in general economic and business conditions in China, and assumptions underlying or related to any of the foregoing and other risks contained in reports filed by the Company with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC"). For these reasons, among others, investors are cautioned not to place undue reliance upon any forward-looking statements in this press release. Additional factors are discussed in the Company's filings with the SEC, including under the section entitled "Risk Factors" in its annual report on Form 20-F, as amended by Form 20-F/A filed with the SEC on May 22, 2026, as well as its current reports on Form 6-K and other filings, all of which are available for review at www.sec.gov. The Company undertakes no obligation to publicly revise these forward-looking statements to reflect events or circumstances that arise after the date hereof.

Cision View original content:https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/xiao-i-corporation-provides-update-on-first-instance-rulings-in-patent-litigation-against-apple-company-intends-to-appeal-to-the-supreme-peoples-court-302804076.html

SOURCE Xiao-I Corporation

FAQ

What did the Shanghai High People's Court decide in June 2026 in the Xiao-I (NASDAQ:AIXI) vs Apple Siri patent cases?

The Shanghai High People's Court dismissed Xiao-I's infringement claims and found specified iPhones with Siri outside the patent scope. According to Xiao-I, the court also rejected Apple's RMB 2 million claim for reasonable litigation expenses, including attorney, translation and notarization fees.

Is Xiao-I (AIXI) appealing the June 2026 Siri patent rulings to the Supreme People's Court?

Yes, Xiao-I intends to appeal the first-instance rulings to the Supreme People's Court. According to Xiao-I, it believes substantial grounds exist for appeal and plans to lodge appeals within the statutory time limit to further assert its intellectual property rights.

How did China's Supreme People's Court rule on the Xiao-I Siri patent validity before the June 2026 AIXI update?

China's Supreme People's Court previously issued a final ruling upholding the Siri-related patent's validity. According to Xiao-I, the court rejected Apple's application to declare the patent invalid, and the patent's validity is now final and non-appealable, separate from current infringement questions.

Did Apple obtain RMB 2 million litigation expenses in the Xiao-I (NASDAQ:AIXI) Siri patent case?

No, Apple did not obtain the requested RMB 2 million in litigation expenses. According to Xiao-I, the Shanghai High People's Court rejected Apple's claim for reasonable litigation expenses, which included attorney fees, translation fees and notarization fees related to the patent dispute.

What risks does the June 2026 Siri patent litigation update create for Xiao-I (AIXI) investors?

The first-instance dismissal of infringement claims adds uncertainty about future compensation or relief. According to Xiao-I, there is no guarantee of a favorable appellate ruling or any financial award, and investors are urged to conduct independent due diligence before making investment decisions.

What is the difference between the patent validity and infringement decisions in the Xiao-I (AIXI) and Apple Siri dispute?

The Supreme People's Court confirmed the patent is valid, while the Shanghai court ruled Siri-equipped iPhones do not fall within its scope. According to Xiao-I, the earlier decision addressed only validity, whereas current proceedings focus on potential infringement and product coverage.