No, to the extent of my knowledge, fully enclosing / articulated plate armor was only ever manufactured and used in Europe. Fully enclosing plate armor was the result of centuries of technological advancements that were unique to Europe. While the armor of other civilizations did develop over time, they did so in a different way than Europe. However, there are cultures in which partial plate armor was used or manufactured.

For example, there is the Indo-Persian "Four Mirrors" armor, featuring a cuirass made of 4 iron plates, often worn over chainmail. So, while it is not exactly alike the rounded and form-fitting cuirasses found in medieval and early modern Europe, it is technically a plate cuirass.

Additionally, partial plate armor also found use in Japan (after the arrival of the Portuguese in 1542). Rich Japanese warriors imported cuirasses, gorgets, and helmets from Europe, lacquered and decorated them in Japanese fashion, and wore them along with native extremity armor. These were referred to as nanban armor, and the Japanese later began manufacturing these cuirasses and helmets in the European style. There are other Japanese plate cuirasses that are of native Japanese invention, such as the Yukinoshita Dou. You may notice that it bears great similarity to the Indo-Persian Four Mirrors armor. It consists of four or more plates held together by hinges. Rarely, you may also find plate shin guards closed by a hinge. Whether or not this constitutes plate armor is also up for debate. Keep in mind, even the best equipped Japanese warrior would still rely on native (non-plate) armor to protect his extremities.

The Mirror Armor came from 6th-9th Century Sui/Tang tradition of using a single piece of breastplate to reinforce laminar armor. The name in Chinese literally means "mirror to protect the heart". The polished disc also serves to decorate and make the armor more elaborate. And then the mongols brought it over to the Islamic world later.

Lighter armor is more suitable for eastern warfare, because the size of the battles are larger and the importance placed on mobility. It makes no sense to arm a small number of warriors(minor lords in Europe) when the alternative is to have a larger, decently equipped cohort. Also remember that the huge logistics issues heavy armor brought over mobile warfare around Asian steppes. The closest thing in terms of weight Asia had compared to European plate armor was the Song Dynasty "Infantry Armor" 歩人甲. Each made with 1825 individual scales and standardized to a weight of 32 to 35 kg. The Song armies were vast and face threats with superior Calvary because of the loss of territory suitable for horsebreeding compared to Tang.

So large well equipped armies were a must. But their lack of mobility made them susceptible to complete annihilation should the battle go south. That's why on a strategic scale the military history of Song is pretty abysmal even though they actually won most of the engagements with their Jurchen/Khitan/Tangut rivals.

At least in the case of China, it was more lack of needs than technical know how. Before the Mongol conquest, Song were producing Hundreds of Thousands of Tons of iron using coal and blast furnaces per year. You need a wealthy warrior class to make plate armor popular. The laminar armor offers decent protection, and was much more affordable and easier to produce industrially. And at least in the case of Song, befitting soldiers of convicts and conscripts.

My first comment on AskHistorians so forgive me if I have overstepped on some rule. Here's my question for anyone who can answer it: have there been any known kings, commanders or just leaders who would have worn full plate armor outside of Europe?