On August 21, 2026, German cleaning equipment company Kärcher filed a lawsuit against Tineco at the Düsseldorf Regional Division of the Unified Patent Court (UPC), alleging patent infringement (Case No.: UPC-CFI-0003016/2026). The patent in question is EP3079553, titled “FLOOR-CLEANING MACHINE.”

The plaintiff in this case, Kärcher, is headquartered in Germany and operates in both the household and professional cleaning sectors. Its product portfolio includes high-pressure washers, vacuum cleaners, steam cleaners, floor scrubbers, and industrial cleaning equipment. The company also entered the floor cleaning sector early on, launching the professional floor scrubber BR 450 in 1986 and entering the consumer cleaning robot market in 2003. According to its published fiscal year 2025 data, K?rcher operates 170 companies in 87 countries worldwide, employs approximately 17,000 people, and reported revenue of 3.483 billion euros in 2025.

The EP3079553 patent at the center of this case is titled “FLOOR-CLEANING MACHINE,” which is directly related to K?rcher’s long-standing floor cleaning equipment business.

TINECO, the company sued by Kärcher, is a smart home appliance brand under the ECOVACS Group. Founded in 1998 and headquartered in Suzhou, the ECOVACS Group went public on the Shanghai Stock Exchange in 2018 and owns two major international consumer technology brands: ECOVACS and TINECO. ECOVACS primarily focuses on home and commercial service robots, while TINECO is mainly responsible for the smart home appliance business. Its Floor One series of floor-cleaning machines ranks among the top sellers in the European and American markets, directly competing with K?rcher’s floor cleaning equipment.

It is worth noting that ECOVACS was recently involved in another UPC patent lawsuit. Beijing Stone Technology Co., Ltd. filed a lawsuit against ECOVACS and its affiliated companies at the UPC Munich Regional Division, under case number UPC-CFI-0003142/2026. The patent in question is EP4011266, titled “SEALING STRUCTURE AND SMART CLEANING APPARATUS.”

As of this writing, neither party has issued a public response regarding the aforementioned case.