On the afternoon of September 1, the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) released the 2025 global top 100 innovation clusters ranking in Hong Kong. China has ranked first in the world for the third consecutive year in terms of the number of global top 100 innovation clusters, and the Shenzhen-Hong Kong-Guangzhou cluster has risen to the global top spot, marking the first time a Chinese innovation cluster has reached the global top position.

Among the global top 100 innovation clusters, China has a total of 24 clusters on the list, followed by the United States (22), Germany (7), the United Kingdom (4), and India (4). In the rankings of the world's top 5 and top 15 innovation clusters, China accounts for 2 and 5 clusters respectively, leading the world in both counts. The Ningbo cluster (ranked 93rd) and the Ningde cluster (ranked 99rd) have made their debuts on the global top 100 innovation clusters list.

(Source: CNIPA Official WeChat Account)

Recently, the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) released the 2024 Annual Report of the CNIPA. In the report, SHEN Changyu, Commissioner of the CNIPA, noted in his message that international cooperation in intellectual property (IP) has been deepened and expanded. Highlights in this regard include the following: (1) The Third Belt and Road High-Level Conference on Intellectual Property was held at a high standard, with a series of new cooperation projects reached. (2) CNIPA played a pivotal role in facilitating the successful conclusion of the WIPO Treaty on Intellectual Property, Genetic Resources, and Associated Traditional Knowledge and the Riyadh Design Law Treaty by the WIPO. (3) The commissioner-level meetings between the CNIPA and its counterparts from the European Union (EU), the United States, the United Kingdom, France, as well as the China-Japan-ROK mechanism were successfully held, and 39 new cooperation agreements were signed with relevant parties. (4) CNIPA actively engaged in institutional cooperation mechanisms, including the China-US-EU-Japan-ROK cooperation, China-ASEAN cooperation, and China-Africa cooperation. (5) CNIPA promoted the upgrading and expansion of cooperation on intellectual property among BRICS countries. (6) Preparations for the entry into force of the second batch of product listings under the China-EU Geographical Indications Agreement are well underway. (7) The Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) cooperation network now covers 84 countries, among other achievements.

Attachment: the 2024 Annual Report of the CNIPA

(Source: CNIPA)

On September 1, the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) of China signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) regarding the "WIPO Lex Judgments" database.

The database provides free, open access to leading judicial decisions relating to IP from around the world. Under the MOU, Hong Kong will contribute leading IP judgments from the Judiciary to the database, facilitating the international IP community's access to such judgments, while also demonstrating Hong Kong's IP-related judicial expertise.

(Source: Xinhua News Agency)

Case Brief

The respondent is a Sino-foreign joint venture enterprise primarily engaged in the research and development, production, and sales of pharmaceutical intermediates, active pharmaceutical ingredients, and finished drugs. Its product categories include cardiovascular drugs, nervous system drugs, and anti-tumor drugs.

Daiichi Sankyo Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as "Daiichi Sankyo") alleges that the technical solution for the medication related to thrombosis prevention and treatment, which was applied for registration by the respondent, falls within the scope of protection of the involved patent titled "Pharmaceutical Composition". Additionally, Daiichi Sankyo contends that the technical solution documentation for the medication submitted by the respondent is insufficient in terms of authenticity and completeness. Based on this, Daiichi Sankyo has filed a request for administrative adjudication regarding drug patent disputes in accordance with the Patent Law and the Administrative Adjudication Measures on the Early Resolution Mechanism for Drug Patent Disputes.

After accepting the respondent's commission, Unitalen formed a drug patent dispute team that meticulously examined the petition and evidentiary materials submitted by the petitioner, and reviewed the examination history of the involved patent and the filing and approval status of the relevant drugs. On this basis, the team explicitly pointed out that, in light of a prior invalidation decision concerning the involved patent, due to the amendments to claims in the invalidation procedure, the judgment of whether the technical solution for the medication falls within the scope of protection of the involved patent should not be based on the granted claims of the involved patent, but on claims 2 and 11 which were upheld as valid in the invalidation decision. Subsequently, the team elaborated that the "starch hydrolysis oligosaccharides" in the technical solution for the medication were neither identical nor equivalent to the "mannitol" specified in the involved patent.

Regarding the relevant evidence, especially the filing materials for drugs, the team specifically stated to the collegial panel that the said evidence constitutes confidential materials, and all involved parties bear strict obligations to keep the information they obtain confidential. At the same time, based on the examination history of the involved patent, the team argued that the claims of the involved patent had been amended during the substantive examination process and specific sugar alcohols had been defined in the claims. Therefore, according to the "prosecution history estoppel" principle, Daiichi Sankyo should not introduce other sugar alcohols, or even substances completely different from sugar alcohols, into the scope of protection. At the same time, the team actively communicated with all parties and prepared supplementary experimental data to prove that the technical solution for the medication is fundamentally different from the involved patent. In addition, the team also submitted patent applications filed by the respondent's shareholders in Europe, as well as common knowledge evidence to support the defense arguments.

Attorney's Analysis

Ultimately, after trial, the collegial panel of the CNIPA held that starch hydrolysis oligosaccharides and mannitol do not constitute substantially the same means within the technology of the involved patent. Furthermore, if the evidence submitted by the generic drug applicant sufficiently demonstrates a high likelihood that the technical solution for the generic drug does not fall within the scope of protection of the involved patent, it would be unfair to further require the respondent to provide additional materials without justified reasons, and such a requirement would be counterproductive to the early resolution of disputes. Consequently, the final adjudication determined that the respondent's technical solution for the medication does not fall within the scope of protection of the involved patent.

Therefore, being familiar with the administrative adjudication review procedure and adept at leveraging patents to initiate adjudication requests or effectively defending against adjudication requests will enable effective protection of the legitimate rights and interests of the petitioner or respondent.

Case Introduction

The focal issue in the case lies in Article 49.2 of the Trademark Law, specifically whether the trademark "Guiyu" (No. 1414829) was publicly, genuinely, and lawfully used in commerce on "alcoholic beverages" during the period from November 11, 2018, to November 10, 2021.

During the review stage, the trademark owner Pengyan Company submitted a licensing contract, product images, purchase and sales contracts, and relevant invoices to the CNIPA. After trial, the CNIPA recognized the use-related evidence and decided to uphold the registration of the trademark.

Our client, dissatisfied with the decision, filed a lawsuit with the Beijing Intellectual Property Court. After trial, the first instance court held that the evidence submitted by Pengyan Company had multiple flaws, and the invoice amount was relatively small. The purchasers were natural persons, and one of the invoices involved a transaction between affiliated companies. Additionally, several aspects of the evidence did not conform to normal business practices. Therefore, the first instance court concluded that the evidence could not form a complete evidence chain and could not prove the use of the disputed trademark within the three-year period.

Pengyan Company, dissatisfied with the first instance judgment, appealed to the Beijing High People's Court for the second-instance proceeding

Result of Ruling

After trial, the Beijing High People's Court reached the same conclusion as that of the first instance court: it did not recognize the evidence submitted by the trademark owner Pengyan Company, and thus the sued decision of the CNIPA was revoked.

Reasons of Ruling

The trademark owner, Pengyan Company, failed to submit the original copies of the evidence, and thus the court did not recognize the authenticity of the evidence. Given that Pengyan Company had submitted false evidence, the court correspondingly raised its burden of proof. Moreover, the quantity of other evidence submitted by Pengyan Company was relatively small, and the evidence, when considered collectively, had obvious flaws. Consequently, the court determined that Pengyan Company's use of the disputed trademark constituted token use only, rather than the use in the sense of the Trademark Law.

Typical Significance

The principle of "good faith" serves as a fundamental clause in the Trademark Law, with its legislative spirit permeating through various clauses of the Trademark Law. In cases concerning the revocation of trademarks for non-use over three years, trademark owners bear the obligation to present evidence of use in good faith during the evidentiary process. Otherwise, the owner will face adverse legal consequences.

Case Brief

Hangzhou Qing X Company (hereinafter referred to as the Qing X Company), an Internet-based bicycle rental service provider, filed an administrative lawsuit against a municipal Administrative Approval and Service Bureau (hereinafter referred to as the Administrative Approval Bureau) and a municipal Big Data Center, on the grounds that the two entities illegally set up and implemented a shared electric bicycle franchise system in the city, which constituted abuse of administrative power to exclude or restrict competition. The lawsuit requested the revocation of the specific sued administrative act. The first instance court ruled to dismiss the claim of the Qing X Company. The Qing X Company was dissatisfied with the ruling and filed an appeal.

The Supreme People's Court, during the second instance, held that the Administrative Approval Bureau and the municipal Big Data Center, by establishing and granting an exclusive franchise for shared electric bicycles in the city to a municipal Jiao X Smart City Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "Jiao X Company"), had essentially set and conferred exclusive franchise for shared electric bicycles. This act amounted to administrative authorities using their administrative power to restrict transactions, lacking both legality and rationality. Furthermore, it had the effect of excluding or restricting competition, thereby constituting an act of abusing administrative power to exclude or restrict competition as prohibited by the Anti-Monopoly Law. Given that the Administrative Approval Bureau lacked legal basis and exceeded its authority in establishing exclusive franchise for shared electric bicycles in the city, and that the evidence on record was insufficient to prove that revoking the sued act would harm national interests or social public interests, the sued administrative act should be revoked. Consequently, the final judgment overturned the first-instance decision and ruled to revoke the administrative act of establishing exclusive franchise for shared electric bicycles in the city and granting it to Jiao X Company.

Typical Significance

This case marks the first instance where the Supreme People's Court has recognized an act of abusing administrative power to exclude or restrict competition. It holds positive significance in clarifying the criteria for determining the abuse of administrative power to exclude or restrict competition, regulating the abuse of administrative power to exclude or restrict competition in accordance with the law, promoting the genuine opening up of market access, advancing the in-depth development of a unified national market, and enhancing market vitality.

(Case Source: Typical Anti-monopoly Cases of People's Courts in 2025 Released by the Supreme People's Court)

From September 5 to 8, 2025, the 15^th China International Trademark and Brand Festival was grandly held in Taiyuan City, Shanxi Province.

Unitalen Actively Participated and Won Multiple Honors

On the evening of September 5, at the Trademark and Brand Festival Welcome Dinner and Award Ceremony, the "2025 Trademark Agency Service Capability Data Statistics 600" list was released. Unitalen Attorneys at Law was once again awarded the title of Grade 5A Trademark Agency among the Top 600. Simultaneously, it was honored with the "2025 Trademark and Brand Festival Contribution Award".

On September 7, at the analysis session of typical trademark cases, one of the classic forums of the Trademark Festival, the administrative dispute case concerning the reexamination on revocation of trademark right of "Guiyu(贵玉)" represented by Unitalen was honored to be selected as one of the "Typical Trademark Agency Cases for 2024".

The Salon on "Registration, Protection, and Legitimate Use of Geographical Names, Trademarks, and Geographical Indications" Was Successfully Held

On the morning of September 7, the salon on "Registration, Protection, and Legitimate Use of Geographical Names, Trademarks, and Geographical Indications" was successfully held, hosted by the China Trademark Association and the Shanxi Promotion Association for Trademark, Brand and Standardization, and co-organized by Unitalen Attorneys at Law and Zhongguancun Vision Intellectual Property Innovation Institute. More than 100 representatives from a number of enterprises, intellectual property service agencies, and related organizations attended the salon.

Recently, the 30th Anniversary Celebration of the Beijing Trademark Association and the Trademark Development Conference were grandly held in Beijing, where the "Beijing Trademark Agencies T300" list was formally released. Unitalen Attorneys at Law was honored to rank in the TIER 1 of the "Beijing Trademark Agencies T300 for 2025".