1. Substantial Revision of the 2025 Guidelines for Patent Examination with Multiple Key Regulations Officially Restructured
I Revision Background
On November 10, 2025, the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) issued the Decision on Amending the Guidelines for Patent Examination (Order No. 84), which will take effect on January 1, 2026. II. Key Points for Revision (1) Preliminary Examination Matters 1) Standardization of Inventor Information. The inventor must be a natural person, and the request form must be filled out with the real information of all inventors. False reporting is prohibited. The examiner generally does not proactively verify the identity of the inventor, but will verify its authenticity when there is evidence indicating non-compliance with the regulations. This measure not only excludes the eligibility of non-natural persons such as artificial intelligence as inventors, but also curbs fraudulent claims of inventorship. Key Points for Filling in Inventor Information in Patent Applications(Effective as of January 1, 2026): a.Foreign Inventors: Fill in the full names and nationalities of all foreign inventors. ID numbers are not required for now (the same rule applies to PCT applications entering China). b.Chinese Inventors: Fill in the full names, nationalities and ID numbers of all Chinese inventors. c.Core Requirements: Inventors must be natural persons. All inventor information shall be truthful and complete. d.After implementation, the actual situation may be further adjusted, and our company will keep a close eye on it. 2) New Priority Rules for Divisional Applications. Failure to declare priority in a divisional application shall be deemed as not claiming priority. The applicant must accurately fill in the priority information in the request form for divisional application. If a notice of “Deemed Not to Have Claimed Priority” is received, priority may be restored in accordance with Section 6.2.6.1 of Chapter 1, Part 1 of the Guidelines. (2) Substantive Examination Matters 1) Clarification of the Subject Matter for Plant Variety Protection. A Plant variety is defined as “a plant grouping that has been artificially selected or discovered and improved, exhibiting consistent morphological and biological characteristics as well as stable genetic traits.” It is clarified that wild plants which have undergone artificial selection and possess industrial value do not qualify as scientific discoveries. The wording regarding genetically modified animals and plants has also been adjusted: if such organisms fall under the category of animal or plant varieties, they shall not be eligible as patentable subject matter. This amendment helps delineate the boundary with the Regulations on the Protection of New Varieties of Plants and expands the scope of patentable subject matter. 2) Standardization of Same-Day Application Procedures. Where the same applicant files both a utility model application and an invention patent application on the same day, an explanation must be provided. If no such explanation is given, the case shall be handled in accordance with Article 9(1) of the Patent Law, which states that “only one patent right shall be granted for the same invention.” If the utility model has already been granted and remains in force, the invention application shall be rejected directly. If an explanation has been submitted and no grounds for rejection are found during the examination of the invention application, the applicant must abandon the utility model patent right; otherwise, the invention application will be rejected. The previous provision allowing authorization through amendment of the invention has been removed. 3) Refinement of Inventiveness Assessment Rules. Technical features in the claims that do not contribute to solving the technical problem generally cannot support inventiveness. It is emphasized that examiners should adopt the perspective of a person skilled in the art and evaluate the technical solution as a whole. 4) Clarification of Examination Rules Related to Artificial Intelligence and Big Data. Where an application involves data collection, tag management, rule setting, recommendation decisions, etc., and such content violates laws, public order, good morals, or harms the public interest, it shall not be granted. Requirements and examples have been added regarding ethical review of artificial intelligence and the sufficient disclosure of specifications, thereby filling a regulatory gap and raising the threshold for applications. 5) New Rules for Examining Streaming Media Inventions. Mere bit streams as such are not eligible for patent protection. However, if the video encoding method used to generate the bit stream constitutes a technical solution, its associated limited storage, transmission methods, and computer-readable media may be protected. Clear requirements for drafting the relevant application documents have also been established, aligning with the developmental needs of the streaming media industry. (3) Re-examination and Invalidation Matters 1) Addition of Grounds for Non-Acceptance of Invalidation Petitions. “Does not reflect the genuine intent of the petitioner” is now included as grounds for rejection, aiming to prevent fraudulent applications. 2) Clarification of Grounds and Evidence in Invalidation Requests. The phrase “the same grounds and evidence” has been amended to “the same or substantially identical grounds and evidence.” This revision better implements the principle of non bis in idem and balances the interests of the petitioner and the patentee. 3) Standardization of Amendment Submission in Invalidation Proceedings. A new provision requires patentees to submit amendments in the format of “full-text replacement pages + a markup table showing changes.” If multiple amendments are submitted in the same proceeding, the last compliant version will serve as the basis for examination, thereby reducing disputes and improving efficiency. (4) Patent Application and Transaction Processing 1) Adjustment of Fee Rules for Sequence Listings. Electronic sequence listings that comply with the prescribed format will no longer incur page fees, while paper submissions will continue to be subject to an additional per-page charge. This change reduces the burden on applicants and promotes electronic filing. 2) Revision of Refund Rules. The previous categories of “refund initiated by the Patent Office” and “refund requested by the party involved” have been merged. Where fees are overpaid, duplicated, or erroneously paid, the Patent Office will no longer initiate refunds on its own. The concerned party must submit a formal request to ensure accurate and timely refund processing. 3) Clarification of Patent Term Adjustment Compensation. Delays caused by the re-examination procedure initiated based on new grounds or evidence submitted by the petitioner are now included as qualifying delays for patent term adjustment. “New grounds” refer to those not previously raised during the substantive examination, and “new evidence” refers to evidence not submitted prior to the final rejection decision. Exceptions apply where the re-examination involves procedural violations in the rejection process. III. Conclusion This revision is comprehensive and targeted, aligning with the patent protection needs arising from new technological developments. It clarifies multiple examination rules and procedures. Patent applicants must strictly adhere to the updated Guidelines to enhance application quality — from document preparation and response during examination to cost management — ensuring efficient protection for their inventions and creations.
2. China National Intellectual Property Administration Issues Notice on “Strengthening Trademark Use Management,” Focusing on Cracking Down on Seven Types of Illegal and Non-compliant Activities
The China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) has issued a notice aiming to strengthen trademark use management, strictly regulate deceptive or misleading public conduct implemented through trademarks, and safeguard fair market competition order and public interests. I. Key Prohibited and Non-compliant Activities 1) Using unregistered trademarks containing deceptive or other prohibited elements (e.g., unregistered marks containing terms like “Specially Supplied,” “Premium,” “Zero Additives,” “Organic,” “100%,” “Handmade,” geographical names, or years), which misleads the public regarding product origin, production date, craftsmanship, or other characteristics. 2) Deceptively using registered trademarks (e.g., combining a registered trademark with slogans or packaging in a way that misleads the public about product quality or other characteristics; altering registered information to mislead; or free-riding on others’ trademarks). 3) Impersonating a registered trademark for use (such as marking a registration mark on an unregistered trademark or claiming to be a “registered trademark”). 4) Failing to use a registered trademark where its use is required (focusing particularly on the tobacco sector, including new tobacco products like e-cigarettes). 5) Prominently using the term “Well-known Trademark” in commercial activities (focusing on using the term “Well-known Trademark,” based on prior recognition records, in advertising and promotion). 6) Non-compliant use of collective or certification trademarks (e.g., using such marks on goods that do not meet the specified quality standards associated with them). 7) Illegal activities by trademark agencies (e.g., assisting with malicious trademark filings or malicious “non-use cancellation” requests that harm trademark owners’ rights). II. Key Regulatory Measures 1) Establish a sound cooperation mechanism between intellectual property departments and market supervision departments, improve channels for receiving reports of violations, and strengthen collaborative efforts. 2) Focus on conducting key investigations in the fields of food, medicine, children’s toys, household appliances, etc., and promptly discover clues of trademark fraud and misleading information. 3) Promptly report illegal clues to law enforcement departments for investigation, and cross regional cases can be reported to higher-level departments for coordinated handling. 4) Strengthen compliance guidance for enterprises, urge producers and operators to ensure the quality of goods and services, operate with integrity, and strengthen the requirements for compliant use of trademarks. 5) Strictly supervise trademark agencies and leverage the role of industry associations; Strengthen credit supervision and carry out dishonest punishment for serious violators in accordance with the law. 6) Increase the promotion of trademark regulations, summarize typical cases and experiences of trademark management, and create an environment for compliant use of trademarks and respect for trademark rights throughout society.
3. The Number of High‑Value Patents Exceeds 1.4 Million, Marking a Leap in China’s Intellectual Property Capability
The China National Intellectual Property Administration held a press conference in November. The latest data shows that by the end of June 2025, China has 15.3 high-value invention patents per 10,000 people, exceeding the planned target. There are over 1.4 million valid invention patents in strategic emerging industries, and a large number of original achievements have emerged in fields such as artificial intelligence, advanced manufacturing, biomedicine, and new energy. The social satisfaction with intellectual property protection has increased to 82.36 points. Acceptance rate of decision of the first instance litigation for intellectual property civil cases remains at a relatively high level of 90%. The patent and trademark examination cycles have been reduced to 15 months and 4 months respectively, maintaining the shortest timeline in the world. 129 national-level intellectual property protection centers and rapid rights protection centers have been established nationwide. The added value of patent-intensive industries reached RMB 16.87 trillion, accounting for 13.04% of GDP. The value of Chinese brands has reached USD 1.81 trillion, ranking second in the world. The import and export of intellectual property usage fees is close to RMB 400 billion, and the cumulative amount of pledged financing exceeds RMB 650 billion. The number of valid invention patents in China has exceeded 5 million, and the number of PCT applications has ranked first in the world for six consecutive years. In the 2025 Global Innovation Index, China has risen to 10th place, entering the global top ten for the first time, with the “Shenzhen-Hong Kong-Guangzhou” cluster ranking first in the world.
4. Beijing Intellectual Property Court Handled 200,000 IP Cases in a Decade, Delivering High‑Quality Judicial Outcomes
(Note: The charts and illustrations in the article are all from the White Paper on the Ten Year Trial Work of Beijing Intellectual Property Court) Recently, the Beijing Intellectual Property Court released trial data for the ten years from November 2014 to October 2024. Over the past decade, the court has accepted a total of 201,984 cases and concluded 195,506 cases, with steady progress in case handling and continuous improvement in trial quality and efficiency.
I. In Terms of the Distribution of Case Types Administrative and civil cases constitute the core of the trial work of Beijing Intellectual Property Court. Over the past decade, 149,486 administrative cases have been accepted, accounting for 74.01% of the total, with an average annual growth rate of 14.85%. 144,186 cases were concluded, accounting for 73.75% of the total, with an average annual growth rate of 25.62%. During the same period, 524,98 civil cases were accepted, accounting for 25.99% of the total, with an average annual growth rate of 11.64%. 51,320 cases were concluded, accounting for 26.25% of the total, with an average annual growth rate of 20.36%.
II. In Terms of Trial level structure The first instance cases dominate, while the second instance cases focus on rights remedies. Over the past decade, the court has accepted 164,871 first instance cases, accounting for 81.63% of the total number of cases accepted. Among them, there were 149,440 administrative first instance cases, accounting for 90.64% of the first instance cases accepted, and 15,431 civil first instance cases, accounting for 9.36%. 158,999 first instance cases were concluded, accounting for 81.33% of the total number of cases concluded. Among them, 144,146 administrative first instance cases and 14,853 civil first instance cases were concluded, accounting for 90.66% and 9.34% respectively. 36,677 second instance cases (including jurisdictional cases) were accepted, accounting for 18.16% of the total. Among them, only 20 administrative second instance cases were accepted, accounting for 0.05%, and 36,657 civil second instance cases were accepted, accounting for 99.95% of the total number of second instance cases accepted. The second instance procedure has become an important path for civil intellectual property rights relief. 36,084 second instance cases (including jurisdictional cases) were concluded, accounting for 18.46% of the total number of cases concluded. Among them, 19 administrative second instance cases were concluded, and 36,065 civil second instance cases were concluded, accounting for 0.05% and 99.95% respectively. Special procedures, state compensation and other cases account for less than 1%, and the allocation of trial resources is more concentrated.
III. In Terms of Types of Intellectual Property Right Trademark, patent, copyright, and competition cases constitute the main case group. The number of trademark cases ranks first, with 137,435 cases accepted in the past decade, accounting for 68.04% of the total number of cases received, with an average annual growth rate of 16.27%. There were 134,650 first instance cases and 2,756 second instance cases, with 132,820 cases concluded, accounting for 67.94% of the total, marking an average annual growth rate of 25.43%. 130,155 cases were concluded in the first instance, and 2,638 cases were concluded in the second instance.
A total of 21,976 patent cases were accepted, accounting for 10.88%, with an average annual growth rate of 5.24%. There were 21,942 first instance cases, accounting for 99.85%, and 28 second instance cases, mainly concentrated in the field of authorization and property rights confirmation. 20,874 patent cases were concluded, accounting for 10.68% of the total number of concluded cases, with an average annual growth rate of 22.80%. Among them, the first instance conclusion rate was also as high as 99.85%, with 20,843 cases, and the second instance conclusion rate was 25 cases, accounting for 0.12% of the total number of such cases concluded.
37,139 copyright cases were accepted (36,696 cases were concluded), accounting for 18.39%, with an average annual growth rate of 13.20%, including 7,101 first instance cases and 29,880 second instance cases. 3,767 cases related to competition (including anti unfair competition, anti-monopoly, etc.) were accepted (3,503 cases were concluded), accounting for 1.86%, with an average annual growth rate of 10.48%. 627 first instance cases were accepted (562 cases were concluded), and 3130 second instance cases were concluded (2,933 cases were concluded). The completion rates of first and second instance cases were 16.04% and 83.73%, respectively, reflecting the complexity of market competition behavior and the professional demand for rights remedies. IV. Analysis by Detailed Cause of Action Intellectual property authorization and confirmation cases have become the core of administrative trials. In patent cases, administrative cases of authorization and confirmation account for 65.99%, including 7,822 invention patents (3,615 rejected reexamination cases and 4207 invalid declaration cases), with 7,431 concluded; 4,408 utility model patents (410 rejected reexamination cases and 3,998 invalid declaration cases) with 4,129 concluded; 2,273 design patents (43 rejected reexamination cases, 2,230 invalid declaration cases), with 2,153 concluded; mainly focusing on procedural disputes such as rejected reexamination and invalidation declaration.
In trademark cases, there were 132,989 administrative cases of authorization and confirmation (128,600 cases were concluded), accounting for 96.77% of the total, covering 79,712 cases of rejection of review (77,651 cases were concluded), 3,354 cases of objection/non registration review (3,210 cases were concluded), 35,159 cases of invalidation declaration (33,488 cases were concluded), and 14,764 cases of cancellation of review (14,251 cases were concluded). Among the trademark administrative cases concluded, 29117 cases were revoked of the sued administrative ruling. 3,117 trademark civil cases (2,951 concluded) account for 2.22% of the total number of trademark cases concluded.
Among copyright cases, 5,891 cases (5,651 concluded) were related to computer software copyright, and 31,248 cases (31,045 concluded) were related to other copyright, accounting for 84.14% and 15.86% respectively. The types of cases are highly consistent with the development trend of the digital economy.
From the distribution of patent cases received, cases involving new generation information technology account for 7.7%, high-end equipment manufacturing industry 5.6%, digital creative industry 3.9%, energy conservation and environmental protection industry 2.5%, new material cases 2.4%, new energy 2.0%, and biotechnology industry 1.9%. In addition, over the past decade, the Beijing Intellectual Property Court has tried a total of 36,201 foreign-related intellectual property cases, accounting for 17.92%, with parties covering more than 100 countries and regions on five continents around the world. A decade of data not only record the solid practice of judicial work, but also demonstrate the importance of judicial protection in fostering innovation and improving the business environment.
