Pantuo Issues Statement on Volkswagen IP Dispute
Volkswagen initiated the dispute in August 2021 with an arbitration over contract termination and IP ownership.
On August 4, Shanghai Pantuo Aviation Technology Service Co., Ltd. (上海磐拓航空科技服务有限公司) issued a statement on its IP dispute with Volkswagen, following the July 30 Reuters report “How Volkswagen’s flying-car dream crashed in China” on the termination of VW’s flying‑car program and related proceedings.
The dispute stems from a contract arbitration initiated by Volkswagen (China) Investment Co., Ltd. in August 2021, which dealt with the termination of a service agreement and the determination of intellectual property ownership.
In its statement, Pantuo addresses eight specific points of contention, including the scope of the 2021 arbitration, the existence of a confidentiality agreement signed in October 2020, the alleged disclosure of Pantuo’s technical materials to AVIC General Aircraft South China Company, unpaid contract payments, and the status of ongoing litigation.
Pantuo notes that the Supreme People’s Court issued a procedural ruling on jurisdiction, holding that Pantuo’s trade secret claims against Volkswagen should be resolved through separate arbitration, while the lawsuit against AVIC General Aircraft South China Company continues to be heard by the Guangdong High People’s Court.
The statement also clarifies that the criminal complaint filed by Pantuo was directed at Volkswagen AG and not at any individual.
The following reproduces the full statement in full — an unofficial English translation first, then the original Chinese. The English translation has been slightly formatted to improve readability.
Statement by Shanghai Pantuo Aviation Technology Service Co., Ltd. (English Translation)
Declaration of Shanghai Pantuo Aviation Technology Service Co., Ltd. — Factual Explanation Regarding the Intellectual Property Dispute between the Company and Volkswagen as Covered by Recent Media Reports
In view of several disputes and misinterpretations appearing in recent domestic and international media reports and online discussions regarding the intellectual property dispute between our company and Volkswagen, our company now provides the following brief explanation of the facts. The following content is all based on publicly available court instruments and already published reports.
I. What exactly was arbitrated in the previous arbitration?
That arbitration was a contract dispute filed by Volkswagen (China) Investment Co., Ltd. in August 2021, and only adjudicated the issue of terminating the “Service Agreement” and the issue of determining the ownership of intellectual property rights — it had absolutely no relation to whether Volkswagen improperly disclosed our company’s technical materials.
The leak issue was never adjudicated in that arbitration. The Civil Ruling (2026) Zui Gao Fa Zhi Min Xia Zhong No. 42 of the Supreme People’s Court has clearly stated: Our company’s claim against Volkswagen regarding trade secrets should be resolved separately through arbitration.
II. Did both parties sign a confidentiality agreement?
Yes. Both parties signed a “Confidentiality Agreement” in October 2020, the terms of which are recorded in the findings section of the Supreme People’s Court ruling.
III. When Volkswagen disclosed the involved trade secrets to AVIC General Aircraft South China Company, did it inform our company? Was our company aware of it beforehand?
Both are no. Volkswagen never informed our company, and our company was not aware of it beforehand. After learning of part of the situation in June 2021, we asked Volkswagen whether it had sent the materials to a third party and received a negative answer.
IV. After Pantuo learned that Volkswagen had sent the involved trade secrets to AVIC without permission, did it formally notify Volkswagen?
Yes. Since June 2021, our company has formally declared the ownership of the intellectual property rights multiple times via emails, letters, lawyer’s letters, and complaints to the Volkswagen Group compliance department; Volkswagen did not give a direct positive reply to any of them, and required AVIC General Aircraft South China Company to continue evaluating and optimizing our company’s technical secrets. AVIC General Aircraft South China Company issued a report on “Evaluation and Optimization” on October 15, 2021.
V. Did Volkswagen pay any contract payments to our company?
No, not a single cent was paid. According to the contract, the transfer of intellectual property rights is premised on written acceptance and payment of the price. Volkswagen refused to sign for the reports delivered by our company and refused to pay the price.
This precondition has never been fulfilled from the very beginning, and the intellectual property rights have never been transferred to Volkswagen.
VI. Was the “Evaluation and Optimization” provided by AVIC General Aircraft South China Company compensated?
Yes. It was provided on a compensated basis pursuant to a service agreement signed between it and Volkswagen. The specific amount and related evidence will be lawfully presented in the litigation at the Guangdong High People’s Court and subsequent procedures.
VII. Does the Supreme People’s Court dismissing our company’s lawsuit against Volkswagen mean that our company lost the case?
No. This ruling is a procedural ruling on jurisdiction and did not touch upon any substantive issues: The Supreme People’s Court held that our company’s claim against Volkswagen regarding trade secrets should be resolved through arbitration, which is precisely the starting point for the next round of rights protection.
The lawsuit against AVIC General Aircraft South China Company continues to be heard by the Guangdong High People’s Court. Substantive hearing has not yet begun, and there is no loss of the case.
VIII. Is the criminal case a complaint filed by our company against Ms. Zhou as an individual?
No. The target of our company’s criminal complaint has always been Volkswagen AG, and has never been directed at any individual.
Our company will not make any comments for the time being on the ongoing judicial proceedings and the case-handling authorities. Our company reserves all legal rights, actively defends its rights, and protects its own interests.
Shanghai Pantuo Aviation Technology Service Co., Ltd.
2026.8.5
Our company is responsible for the authenticity and accuracy of the facts stated in this declaration, and is willing to bear corresponding legal liability in accordance with the law.
上海磐拓航空科技服务有限公司声明（中文原文）
上海磐拓航空科技服务有限公司声明——关于近期媒体报道所涉本公司与大众汽车知识产权纠纷的事实说明
鉴于近日国内外媒体报道及网络讨论中关于我司与大众汽车的知识产权纠纷中出现的若干争议和误读，本公司现就以下事实作简要说明。以下内容均以公开裁判文书及已公开报道为据。
一、此前的仲裁到底裁了什么？
该仲裁系大众汽车（中国）投资有限公司于2021年8月提起的合同纠纷，审理的仅是《服务协议》的解除问题与知识产权确定权属的问题——与大众是否违规披露本公司技术材料没有任何关系，泄密问题从未被该仲裁审理。最高人民法院（2026）最高法知民辖终42号民事裁定书已明确：本公司对大众的技术秘密主张应另行通过仲裁解决。
二、双方是否签有保密协议？
有。双方于2020年10月签订《保密协议》，其条款经最高法裁定书查明部分记载。
三、大众向中航通飞华南公司披露涉案商业秘密时是否告知我司？我司事前是否知情？
均为否，大众从未告知我司，且我司事前不知情，2021年6月了解到部分情况后询问大众是否发送给第三方并得到了否定回答。
四、磐拓知道大众未经允许发送涉案商业秘密给通飞后是否正式通知大众？
有。自2021年6月起，本公司多次以邮件、函件、律师函及向大众集团合规部门投诉等方式，正式声明知识产权归属；大众均未正面回复，且要求中航通飞华南公司继续对本公司技术秘密进行评估与优化，中航通飞华南公司于2021年10月15日出具了“评估及优化”报告。
五、大众是否向本公司支付过合同款项？
否，分文未付。依合同约定，知识产权转移以书面验收并支付价款为前提，大众拒绝签收我司交付的报告，拒绝支付价款，该前提自始未成就，知识产权从未转移至大众。
六、中航通飞华南的”评估与优化”是否有偿？
是，系依其与大众签订的服务协议有偿提供。具体金额及相关证据，将在广东省高级人民法院诉讼及后续程序中依法出示。
七、最高法驳回本公司对大众的起诉，是否意味着本公司败诉？
否。该裁定系管辖程序裁定，未触及任何实体问题：最高法认为本公司对大众的技术秘密主张应通过仲裁解决，恰恰是下一轮维权的起点。对中航通飞华南的诉讼由广东省高级人民法院继续审理。实体审理尚未开始，不存在败诉。
八、刑事案件是否系本公司控告周女士个人？
否。本公司刑事控告的对象自始为大众公司，从未针对任何个人。
本公司对正在进行的司法程序及办案机关暂时不作任何评论，本公司保留一切法律权利，积极维权，保护自身权益。
上海磐拓航空科技服务有限公司
2026.8.5
本公司对本声明所述事实的真实性、准确性负责，并愿依法承担相应法律责任。
This article is provided free of charge by one human — myself — who writes every China eVTOL news article on this website. Readers are trusted to respect the work herein and are requested not to plagiarize, scrape its content for training large language models, or repurpose it commercially. Thank you for your integrity and respect. For further information, please see the Terms of Use, located on the home page menu bar.
Thank you for supporting independent news!