Recently, the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) published the newly revised Regulations under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) on its official website. These regulations are now in effect.

The amendments primarily concern Rule 26.3, Rule 89, and Rule 92 of the Regulations, modifying the examination and correction of certain parts of international applications by the Receiving Office to ensure that international applications are published in a single language. The amendments also allow competent authorities other than the International Bureau to accept international applications and relevant documents submitted exclusively in electronic form, enabling the International Bureau to communicate with applicants or competent authorities in any of the languages of international publication.

(Source: China Intellectual Property News)

To further standardize business processing procedures and better meet actual business processing needs, the Trademark Office of CNIPA has adjusted and improved the following trademark business application forms: 1. application for trademark change; 2. application for trademark correction; 3. application for recordal of trademark license; 4. application for reissuance of change, transfer, and renewal certificates; 5. application for trademark pledge registration; 6. application for revocation of a registered trademark not been used for three consecutive years without justified reasons.

The revised application forms will officially come into use on July 24, 2025. From the date of its implementation, trademark applicants and relevant institutions must use the new versions when submitting applications for the above-mentioned business. The previous versions of the application forms will no longer be accepted.

Annex: Revised application forms for relevant business.zip

Trademark Office of CNIPA

July 21, 2025

(Source: Trademark Office of CNIPA)

On July 11 local time, the 2025 World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Global Awards ceremony was held in Geneva, Switzerland. The ten winning enterprises were selected across five sectors: Health, Environment, Agri-food, Creative Industries, and Information and Communications Technology (ICT). Unitree Robotics from Hangzhou, China made the list with its advanced robotics technology. The other nine winning enterprises came from Singapore, India, Iceland, Sri Lanka, Chile, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and South Korea.

(Source: CNIPA)

The patent reexamination administrative litigation second-instance case of the patentee "Dongguan Simplewell Technology Co., Ltd." (hereinafter referred to as "Simplewell"), represented by Unitalen Attorneys at Law, recently received the Supreme People's Court's judgment [(2023) Zui Gao Fa Zhi Xing Zhong No. 468]. The judgment revoked the Beijing Intellectual Property Court's [(2022) Jing 73 Xing Chu No. 9357] administrative ruling and the China National Intellectual Property Administration's (CNIPA) Reexamination Decision No. 298040, securing patent protection for Simplewell's innovative technology and further strengthening its product's competitive advantage in the market.

Case Brief

The sued decision was issued by the CNIPA in response to a reexamination request concerning the patent application for an invention titled "An Electronic Cooling Anti-Condensation System and Its Anti-Condensation Method" with the application No. 201711290069.2 (hereinafter referred to as "the application involved"). The application involves real-time acquisition of the testing chamber's internal temperature and humidity via a temperature and humidity sensor, as well as real-time detection of electronic cooling plate temperatures via temperature sensors. The main controller calculates the dew point value of the air in the testing chamber based on the acquired temperature and humidity. When the dew point value exceeds a preset value, it controls the cooling plate control unit to reduce the number of working electronic cooling plates or their output power, thereby implementing anti-condensation measures for the cooling plates, redundant control, and fault-free downtime.

The sued decision holds that Claim 1 is distinguished over Evidence 1 in the following technical features: (1) this application relates to an electronic cooling anti-condensation system, wherein electronic cooling plates are used for cooling, and there is at least one group of the electronic cooling plates, each group of the electronic cooling plates is respectively mounted on a chamber wall of the testing chamber, and one end part of the electronic cooling plate dissipates heat outside the testing chamber while the other part thereof is fixed on the chamber wall or the interior of the testing chamber; and the specific method for controlling a cooling plate control unit; and (2) this application comprises temperature sensors connected to a main controller, used for detecting temperatures of the electronic cooling plates, wherein the temperature sensors are mounted on a part, close to an inner side of the testing chamber, of each group of the electronic cooling plates, or a common part, close to an inner side of the testing chamber, of all electronic cooling plates, or the chamber wall, or cooling fins, close to the interior of the testing chamber, of the electronic cooling plates. The technical problem actually solved by the distinguishing technical features is how to achieve temperature control of the cooling system. Regarding the distinction (1), Evidence 2 discloses a refrigeration system applicable to various circulation bodies, and discloses that the system can achieve independent control of multiple groups of semiconductor refrigerators under the control of controller 9, providing different refrigerating capacities, thus ensuring the accuracy and adjustability of temperature control. The above-disclosed features perform the same function in Evidence 2 as they do in this application, and can provide inspiration for achieving precise temperature control in Evidence 1. Regarding the distinction (2), based on the disclosure in Evidence 1, those skilled in the art can make selections as needed. Therefore, based on Evidence 1 in combination with Evidence 2 and common knowledge, Claim 1 lacks an inventive step. The first-instance court and the sued decision hold essentially the same view.

In the second instance, Unitalen provided a detailed explanation of the solutions of the patent involved and the reference documents regarding the essence of the technical solutions, and elaborated on the basis and facts for re-determining the technical problem. Based on the re-determination of the technical problem, Evidence 2 did not provide technical inspiration for solving the technical problem, and there was no motivation for improvement based on Evidence 1. The judges in the second-instance, having thoroughly understood the technical facts, supported Simplewell's claims and issued a judgment revoking the sued decision and the first-instance judgment.

Issue of the Case

The main focus of dispute between the two parties in this case is around the determination of inventiveness, including the technical problems actually solved by the distinguishing features, the motivation for improvement of the prior art, combination inspiration, and the like. However, it is worth noting that another issue also drew the attention of the panel: the technical solution of this application has corresponding family patents in other countries. During the first and second instance proceedings of this case, the family patents in Europe, the U.S., Japan, South Korea, Russia, Indonesia, and other countries have been granted one after another, while only the Chinese application was rejected. The first-instance court held that patents are territorial, and foreign grants do not necessarily entail authorization in China. In this regard, Simplewell submitted evidence in the appeal, pointing out that the reference documents cited in this case had also been used in examinations in some other countries. Moreover, the prior art cited in the granted Korean patent was identical to that in this case. Although the standards for assessing inventiveness vary across countries, the core issue remains the examination of obviousness. Additionally, some features was rejected based on common knowledge rather than disclosure in the prior art, leading Simplewell to question whether the inventiveness assessment in this case was conducted under an inappropriate standard. After the hearing, Simplewell further submitted an analysis of reference documents and examination opinions from Korea, Japan, and the U.S. that were similar to those used in this case, for the judges' reference. Although the second-instance judgment did not explicitly address these materials or the discrepancies in grant standards between China and other countries, it is believed that this situation influenced the judges' conviction.

Case Brief

Headquartered in Holzminden, Germany, Symrise is one of the world's leading companies in flavors and fragrances, food and cosmetic ingredients, and nutritional supplements.

Symrise's Chinese invention patent (hereinafter referred to as "the patent involved") entitled "Antimicrobial Compositions" faced a second invalidation challenge initiated by a petitioner for invalidation. The patent involved had previously withstood an invalidation challenge, and its European counterpart was also challenged by opposition proceedings. In the first invalidation case in China, the Unitalen team provided effective response strategies and successfully represented Symrise in maintaining validity of the Chinese patent.

In the second invalidation challenge, the petitioner for invalidation further referred to multiple documents cited in the opposition proceedings of the European counterpart of the patent involved, and submitted the invalidation grounds including that the patent involved fails to abide by the principle of good faith, the disclosure of the description is insufficient, the claims are not supported by the description and lack an inventive step, and the like.

Symrise continued to entrust Unitalen as its agent to respond to this invalidation request. In the oral hearing, the Unitalen team made full preparations and presented opinions: during the evidence examination process, pointing out issues with the evidence qualification and probative force of the evidence submitted by the petitioner for invalidation; regarding the principle of good faith, pointing out the petitioner's issues with burden of proof and confusion of legal concepts; accurately pointing out that multiple invalidation grounds and evidence from the petitioner violated the "res judicata" principle, etc. Based on the oral hearing situation, the Unitalen team submitted post-hearing agent opinions and related reference materials to further elaborate its views.

Case outcomes

Finally, the petitioner for invalidation withdrew the request for invalidation without any amendment made to the claims of the patent involved. The validity of the patent involved was maintained. Once again, the Unitalen team assisted the client in successfully defending its patent rights.

Related reading: Unitalen Representing the Famous German Chemicals Company Won the Patent Invalidation Case

Recently, Unitalen Law Office represented a company in successfully invalidating the opposing party's design patent for shoe soles in patent invalidation proceedings, providing strong support for the client's related litigation proceedings.

Case Brief

Previously, in a lawsuit dispute with the client company of Unitalen, the patentee, a natural person, requested the client company to cease infringement and claimed damages for infringement

In this case, there was a prior sale of products on the market that were similar to the patent involved, and prior to the filing date of the patent involved, details of the appearance of the prior-sold products had been disclosed in a post on the XiaoHongShu (RedNote) platform. On this basis, the Unitalen team collected evidence for the post using timestamp notarization, and specifically verified the content publication and modification mechanism of the XiaoHongShu platform. When a user modifies the content of a XiaoHongShu post, the publication time of the post is also updated synchronously. Ultimately, the authenticity of the XiaoHongShu post was accepted by the collegiate panel, and accordingly, the patent rights involved were declared to be invalid in full.

Highlights Summary

In this case, the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) holds that "XiaoHongShu is a well-known Chinese platform for sharing lifestyles and consumer experiences. After registration, users can upload and publish posts to the Internet. The time displayed at the end of a published post indicates its publication time. If a user modifies a post he/she has published, the end of the post will display "Edited on..." to indicate the last editing time". In view of this, the CNIPA recognized the authenticity of the XiaoHongShu network evidence. In addition, the CNIPA believes that "although XiaoHongShu posts have selections of visibility ranges, which can be switched at will without leaving a trace, the post involved in this case relates to product promotion, showing a clear intention of sharing with others. The post was already in a public state before the filing date of the patent involved, which has a high probability. The challenge raised by the patentee is not sufficient to overturn the conclusion in the absence of clear counter-evidence". It is thereby inferred that the evidence had been disclosed prior to the filing date of the patent involved. The outcome of this case provides both positive and negative references for the determination of authenticity and disclosure of online evidence in patent confirmation proceedings.

In the afternoon of August 8, 2025, the Beijing Trademark Association marked its 30th anniversary with a grand celebration and the Trademark Development Conference. Leaders including Ma Fu, Chairman of the China Trademark Association, ZHANG Guopeng, Deputy Director of the Trademark Office of the CNIPA, CAI Xin, Deputy Director of the Beijing Intellectual Property Office, and YU Zehui, Chairman of the Beijing Trademark Association, attended the conference and delivered speeches. The conference was hosted by Ray Lei Zhao, Executive Deputy Secretary of the Beijing Trademark Association.

At the award ceremony, Unitalen IP, with its outstanding strength and good reputation in the field of trademarks, received multiple honors. Unitalen Attorneys At Law was selected into "Gold Medal Trademark Legal Service Teams". Unitalen Partners, SUN Zhi, Ray Lei Zhao, ZHU Guodong and LI Bing were awarded as "Leaders of Trademark Legal Services". Unitalen partner, TAN Yaqi was awarded as "Rising Stars of Trademark Legal Services".

In addition, ZHANG Yazhou, Partner and Attorney at Unitalen, was invited to the conference and delivered a keynote speech on "Considerations in Corporate Trademark Compliance" at the main forum. Nearly 500 professionals from government departments, affiliated associations, member organizations, etc. attended the conference and discussed the future of the industry, pooling intelligence and strength to open a new era of the trademark industry development.

On July 17, 2025, the "Seminar on Intellectual Property Protection and Layout Strategies for Biomedical Enterprises Expanding into Europe and the United States" was successfully held in Chongqing, hosted by the Chongqing Intellectual Property Protection Center and the Chongqing Branch of the National Advisory Center for Overseas Intellectual Property Dispute Settlement, and co-organized by the Chongqing Branch of Unitalen Attorneys at Law, the Intellectual Property Service Center of Chongqing Liangjiang New Area, and Unitalen Law Office.

The seminar specially invited speakers Rob Cerwinski, a managing partner of Gemini Law LLP of the USA, Tracey Roberts, a partner of Pinsent Masons of the UK and local IP specialists and scholars to focus on pain points of enterprises in overseas expansion, and to provide professional guidance for Chongqing biomedical enterprises to break through the intellectual property barriers in Europe and the United States.

Recently, World Trademark Review (WTR), an international authoritative media in the field of intellectual property, released the list of Global Leaders 2025. Ray Lei Zhao, Partner and Attorney at Unitalen was selected on the list for the third consecutive year for his excellent capability and good reputation.

WTR conducted an exclusive interview with experts selected on the list of Global Leaders. The following is the full text of the interview with Attorney Ray Lei Zhao:

https://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/survey/wtr-global-leaders/2025/article/ray-lei-zhao