I'll answer the headline question up front: not really. Not at this time (but read through the entire article).
I'll posit an answer for Nikon, too: I don't believe that Nikon thinks that they're so much a threat, but rather they are disturbed that others are benefiting from Nikon's intellectual property and what that implies for the future.
The headline question comes from a reader, who also wonders what the real story is behind Nikon's sudden legal effort. As they pointed out, the vast majority of the lenses sold by the camera makers are zooms, not primes. The "rule of thumb" at dealers is that most customers buy two lenses and that's it. Both tend to be zooms, because convenience and extensive capability are their two top goals.
Those of you reading this are likely to have ten or more lenses in your gear closet (I know this from site reader surveys). Yes, you bought some zooms, but you're supplementing them with a variety of primes, and now some of those primes might be of Chinese origin. This is one reason why I wrote my piece the other day: Nikon's legal action could seriously erode support from Nikon's very best customers, and those customers do Nikon's best marketing. You can see that on the Internet by just how much discussion is going on about this topic in the various fora, which in turn are being fed by headlines in the news sections, and some of those are absolutely clickbait (e.g. "Nikon in Revenge Mode: Third-Party Z-Mount Lenses Vanish from Shelves").
Thing is, we've been through this before, though with little legal action (other than Nikon suing Sigma over violation of a VR patent). During the late SLR and DSLR eras, Sigma, Tamron, and Tokina were constantly reverse engineering lens mount communications and providing third-party lens options. And every now and then an update to an existing camera or an entirely new camera would change something slightly in mount communications and I'd get a slew of "how do I fix this" questions, plus you'd see "Nikon broke my [Third-Party] lens" posts. The lens company in question would (usually) eventually come up with a firmware update that fixed the problem, but back then we didn't have ways of doing that in the field, so the lens had to go back to manufacture to get new firmware. Nikon's customer support line was on the front lines constantly having to deal with the customer question when they knew nothing about the lens that was having trouble.
I know that Nikon didn't like that. Almost always the finger was pointed at Nikon as intentionally doing something to break compatibility. In my talks with Nikon engineers and product managers, though, the answer was always something akin to "we just wanted to improve our product; we don't test against third party lenses."
I suspect that Nikon now sees third party lenses as a potential support issue if they're not licensing the mount communications from Nikon. Even there, we recently had a problem with at least a couple of licensed Tamron lenses when a camera firmware update was released, but this was resolved by both parties quickly, as there was official communication going on between the organizations behind the scenes.
I know that when the Zfc was introduced, Nikon was actually supportive of Viltrox's lenses for the mount, particularly in Asia. The Zfc would have been a problematic mistake in Asia if there was only one small Nikon prime for it. As it was, Nikon had to point to two FX lenses (28mm f/2.8 and 40mm f/2), which don't exactly fit in a nice 35mm or 50mm equivalent box.
Somewhere along the way Nikon decided that they would license the mount. That Cosina (Voigtlander) and Tamron were the first two to sign on isn't surprising, as these companies have worked with Nikon on an OEM basis way back into the film era and had close relationships. I think it was Nikon deciding that everyone making a lens for the Z-mount using the communications protocols should be a licensee that things started to break.
You might note that Z-mount versions of Tamron lenses tend to be about US$30 more than the E-mount versions. I don't believe this is due to sales volume or special parts needed for the Z-mount. I suspect that it's because Nikon is charging a small per lens licensing fee. At US$30 to the consumer, that would imply something significantly less than US$10 a lens. On a US$1000+ lens, that's not a big deal and not likely to change demand. But what happens on a US$200 lens? You start distorting pricing upwards enough to potentially impact sales. The Chinese have been using pricing to drive sales, and I suspect that they're balking at paying a mount fee (it seems clear that Viltrox and Nikon were talking before the suit was filed). When you also add in the potential tariff hits, I suspect the rice counters in Shanghai and Hong Kong began complaining about bottom lines and cash flows.
Personally, I was never a fan of the third-party lenses in the F-mount. The only time I'd opt for one was when it was the only choice, and even then I'd hesitate. That's because the mount logistics just kept causing issues, first with focus, then with VR, then with... well, you get the idea. Mount licensing has the potential to put that kind of problem behind us, as the quick fix for the Tamrons showed. If that means US$30 more a lens, I'm all for it. I believe that's Nikon's stance, too, but I'm reading a lot between the lines here.
Bonus: We've already seen issues with the Chinese reverse engineering. For the most part that doesn't show up for still photo use, but I've seen multiple problems with video autofocus and aperture control on several third party lenses that aren't mount licensed.