Abstract: With the intensification of global scientific and technological competition, developed countries have imposed stricter blockades and restrictions on various innovation organizations in developing countries in key core technologies in order to maintain technological leadership. The development dilemma faced by the latter in key core technological innovation is becoming more complex, which is compared to "stranglehold" in academia and even industry. As the problem of "stranglehold" becomes increasingly severe, the academic community has conducted a lot of research on the "stranglehold" technologies (only at the technical level) of developing countries, focusing on why their innovation organizations are "stranglehold" in trying to acquire key core technologies such as chip manufacturing, but ignoring that the "stranglehold" implemented by developed countries is not limited to restricting the export of their own key technologies, but after the innovation organizations of late developing countries are forced to develop independently controllable key core technologies, developed countries will also curb the key core technologies independently developed by the latter in terms of technology ecology, business ecology and even market access. The "stranglehold" context encountered by the latter has extended to the ecological and market levels, but the academic community has paid insufficient attention to this. This leads to the lack of pertinence of research conclusions and the lack of matching between strategy suggestions and situations. In view of this, based on the specific practice of innovation organizations in China's chip industry encountering and breaking through the "stranglehold" situation, this paper systematically combs and summarizes the "stranglehold" situation from three aspects: connotation characteristics, evolution logic and breakthrough path. The study finds that: Firstly, the "stranglehold" context is that under the background of national competition, technology leading countries politicize economic, trade and scientific and technological issues, exceed the boundaries of national normal economic behavior in terms of technology, ecology and market, dynamically evolve and implement economic coercion and political intervention, restrict the export of domestic advanced technologies and products to late developing countries, prevent innovation organizations in late developing countries from obtaining complementary assets from the innovation ecosystem dominated by technology leading countries, and prevent technology products with comparative advantages in late developing countries from entering the international market, so that late developing countries and their various innovation organizations fall into a passive controlled, sluggish development situation and commercial disadvantage. Secondly, interest competition and mutual game between countries are the internal motivation for the existence of the "stranglehold" context. The catch up of key core technologies of late developing countries is the external condition that triggers the emergence of the "stranglehold" context. Politicizing, weaponizing and instrumentalizing economic and trade science and technology issues is the essential connotation of the "stranglehold" context, and claiming market rights beyond the boundaries of normal economic behavior is the boundary of the "stranglehold" context. It shows a differentiated mechanism of action according to time, and is the development law of the "stranglehold" context. Therefore, The "stranglehold" context has five significant characteristics: national competitiveness, inevitability of latecomers, political intervention, economic coercion, and dynamic evolution. It can be logically deconstructed into three categories: technological "stranglehold" context, ecological "stranglehold" context, and market "stranglehold" context. Thirdly, under the guidance of the top-level design of self-reliance and self-improvement in science and technology, building innovation consortia, and developing new quality productivity, various innovative organizations in latecomer countries can implement breakthrough innovation, integrated innovation, and disruptive innovation in stages through three breakthrough modes as dualism, inclusiveness, and collaboration. They can sequentially master advanced technologies, possess complementary assets, expand overseas markets, and achieve "made out", "used well", and "sold well" in key core technology products with the help of a proactive government, effective market, and strong governance. They can sequentially break through the technological "stranglehold" context, ecological "stranglehold" context, and market "stranglehold" context.