No. 84

The Decision of the CNIPA on Amending the Guidelines for Patent Examination has been deliberated and adopted at the 5th executive meeting on September 18, 2025, is hereby promulgated, and shall be effective from February 1, 2026 onwards.

Commissioner: SHEN Changyu

November 10, 2025

Attached is a comparison table for some amendments: https://www.unitalen.com.cn

/html/folder/25120420-1.htm

(Source: the website of CNIPA)

Recently, the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) released the World Intellectual Property Indicators (WIPI) report, according to which:

In 2024, global patenting activity grew for the fifth consecutive year, up 4.9%. A substantial rise in patent filings by residents of China, India, the Republic of Korea, and Japan was the main driver of global growth in 2024.

Global industrial design filings rose by 2.2% to 1.6 million designs, with seven of the top 20 countries seeing double-digit growth. With 906,849 design applications filed, applicants residing in China were the most active worldwide. They were followed by applicants from Germany (70,212 applications), the United States (66,855 applications), Italy (63,668 applications), and the Republic of Korea (60,109 applications). The top five origins collectively accounted for nearly three-quarters (74.9%) of the global activity in 2024.

After two years of slowdown, global trademark applications show signs of recovery and remain substantially stable by the end of the year. The highest volume of filing activity came from applicants based in China with a combined domestic and abroad application class count of around 7.3 million, followed by applicants from the United States (836,457 applications), the Russian Federation (559,436 applications), India (532,900 applications), and Brazil (436,291 applications).

(Source: WIPO China)

The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) launches the WIPO Mediation Pledge by SEP Holders to IoT SMEs. In this new initiative, some standard-essential patent (SEP) holders have committed to offering WIPO Mediation before moving toward litigation in licensing disputes involving small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) that manufacture or sell IoT devices (IoT SMEs). Ericsson, Huawei, Nokia, Qualcomm, and Sisvel are the first SEP holders to sign this Pledge.

This marks the first time that some SEP holders have pledged to prioritize mediation over court proceedings, making SEP dispute resolution more accessible, efficient, and cost-effective for IoT SMEs. Under the Pledge, a mediation offer made by an SEP holder will be submitted to the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center pursuant to Article 4 of the WIPO Mediation Rules, and IoT SMEs will be given 30 days to consider and accept the offer. In such WIPO mediation cases involving IoT SMEs, SEP holders will bear two-thirds of the mediator's fees and case management fees under the WIPO mediation fee schedule.

In recent years, an increasing number of innovators and businesses have turned to the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center to resolve SEP/FRAND licensing issues through Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) procedures, including more than 85 WIPO SEP mediation cases.

(Source: WIPO China)

On December 4th, the Intellectual Property Department of the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region signed separate Memoranda of Understanding with the Intellectual Property Department under Cambodia's Ministry of Commerce and the Intellectual Property Corporation of Malaysia, establishing a framework for cooperation in the field of intellectual property to promote innovation and economic development.

The two Memoranda of Understanding were signed during the Business of IP Asia Forum held in Hong Kong, aiming to deepen cooperation between Hong Kong, China, Cambodia, and Malaysia in various aspects of intellectual property creation, protection, administration, and commercialization, and to enhance the pivotal role of intellectual property in driving innovation and creativity as well as seizing business opportunities.

(Source: www.chinanews.com.cn)

Case Brief

AI X Diagnosis Co., Ltd. in New Zealand (hereinafter referred to as "AI X Company") filed a lawsuit with the court of first instance, alleging that it is the right holder of the technical secret related to the production process and product preparation procedure for isolating and purifying natural protease 3 (abbreviated as PR3 in English) from the azurophilic granules of neutrophils in human blood. After resigning from the AI X Company, SUN X became the major shareholder and legal representative of Wuhan BO X Biotechnology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "BO X Company"). SUN X violated his confidentiality obligations by unlawfully disclosing AI X Company's technical secrets to the BO X Company. He further colluded with BO X Company to exploit the technical secret involved for illegal gains. Sun X also applied for patents for the technical secret involved, resulting in its disclosure, which severely damages the legitimate rights and interests of AI X Company. The court of first instance held that the technical solutions of the patent and the technical secret were substantially similar, and that the patent application had utilized and partially disclosed the technical secret. BO X Company had used the technical secret involved to produce PR3 products. At the same time, SUN X, in violation of his confidentiality obligations, disclosed the mastered technical secret to BO X Company and authorized the company to use it, thereby jointly infringing upon the technical secret. The court of first instance rendered a judgment ordering BO X Company and SUN X to immediately cease their infringing acts and jointly and severally compensate AI X Company for economic losses amounting to 1.8 million yuan. Both AI X Company and BO X Company, along with SUN X, were dissatisfied with the judgment and filed appeals. AI X Company contended that the compensation amount awarded in the first instance was too low, while BO X Company and SUN X argued that the technical information involved did not constitute a technical secret and that its content was already known to the public.

The Supreme People's Court, in a second-instance trial, held that the technical secret involved encompassed a large volume of technical information, constituting a relatively complete technical solution. Even if parts of the technical information were known to the public, it was necessary to consider the interrelationships among the various pieces of information, as well as whether the overall technical solution was known to the public. In this case, AI X Company provided prima facie evidence that it had implemented appropriate confidentiality measures for the technical information at issue and reasonably demonstrated that the technical information was infringed. Although the isolation and purification of PR3 from the azurophilic granules of neutrophils in human blood was a technique known to those skilled in the art, the technical information involved pertained to specific operational steps and sequences, involving a significant number of reagents and the concentrations thereof, as well as the selection of relevant operational parameters, which cannot be obtained without repeated experimentation, modification, optimization, and adjustment, and forming a complete technical solution inevitably requires a significant amount of research and development costs. AI X Company applied this operational procedure to actual production and achieved favorable results. Therefore, the disclosure of specific information based on different pieces of evidence does not prove that the overall technical solution of the technical secret involved or the particular step corresponding to each confidential point has become known to the public. The arguments made by BO X Company and SUN X that the technical secret involved was already known to the public are untenable. The compensation amount awarded in the first instance was not obviously inappropriate. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeals and upheld the original judgment.

Typical Significance

This case serves as a typical example of the equal protection afforded to trade secrets held by foreign rights holders under the law. The ruling in this case emphasizes that a systematic and complete technical solution developed through experimentation and optimization can still be deemed as not known to the public, and in principle, the constituent elements of a technical secret cannot be negated simply by combining fragmented information from different sources. This case demonstrates the protection of trade secrets formed overseas within China's jurisdiction, conducts valuable explorations in cross-border judicial protection of trade secrets, and protects the legitimate rights and interests of foreign rights holders in a fair and equal manner in accordance with the law, thus enhancing the confidence of foreign-invested enterprises in investing in China. Accordingly, this case stands as a representative example of the people's courts applying the principle of equal protection to both Chinese and foreign entities and optimizing the legal business environment.

(Case Source: Typical Anti-Unfair Competition Cases of the People's Courts in 2025)

Case Brief

Opponent: Institut National de l’Origine et de la Qualité

Respondent: X Trading (Shanghai) Co., Ltd.

Main Grounds of the Opponent: The registration of the opposed trademark violates the provisions of Item (7) of Paragraph 1 of Article 10 and Paragraph 1 of Article 16 of the Trademark Law.

Upon examination, the Trademark Office held that the opposed trademark is designated for use on goods such as meat, fish (non-live), canned cooked meat, and others. The evidence provided by the opponent demonstrates that "VOLAILLES DES LANDES" (Landes Poultry) constitutes a geographical indication for French meat and poultry products. "LANDES" refers to the geographical name of a region in France, renowned globally as a major producing area of duck and goose foie gras. The Landes goose is a world-famous, high-quality meat goose breed. Through extensive media coverage in China, it has become well known to the relevant public. The opposed trademark, with its meaning of "Landes Goose" in French, bears a similar meaning to the aforementioned French geographical indication. The respondent does not originate from the said region, and the registration and use of the opposed trademark on meat and other goods are likely to mislead the public. Its use on other designated goods may also cause consumers to misidentify the product variety, origin, or other characteristics. In accordance with the provisions of Item (7) of Paragraph 1 of Article 10 and Paragraph 1 of Article 16 of the Trademark Law, the registration of the opposed trademark shall be refused.

Typical Significance

This case serves as a typical example of the accurate application of Paragraph 1 of Article 16 of the Trademark Law to provide equal protection for foreign geographical indications. It demonstrates the trademark authority's unwavering determination to foster a favorable business environment, combat malicious free-riding on the reputations of foreign geographical indications to mislead the public, and uphold an honest, credible, and orderly trademark registration system.

(Case Source: Typical Cases of Trademark Opposition and Review in 2024)

Recently, World Intellectual Property Review (WIPR), an internationally authoritative intellectual property media outlet, has officially released the China Trademarks Rankings and China Patents Rankings in 2025. Unitalen Attorneys at Law has retained multiple honors for consecutive years.

Unitalen Attorneys at Law

Trademark Non-litigation Field

（Outstanding）

Trademark Litigation Field

（Highly Recommended）

Patent Non-litigation Field

（Highly Recommended）

Patent Litigation Field

（Recommended）

LI Deshan

（Highly Recommended Individuals in the Patent Non-litigation Field）

ZHAO Lei

（Outstanding Individuals in the Trademark Non-litigation Field）

Recently, World Intellectual Property Review (WIPR), an internationally authoritative intellectual property media outlet, released the list of 2025 WIPR Global Leaders. Unitalen Attorneys at Law was once again recognized as a global leading firm. Meanwhile, Vice President LI Deshan, Attorney ZHAO Lei, Attorney PAN Wei, and Attorney LI Bing made it onto the list of Global Leaders (Individuals) for their outstanding capabilities and stellar reputations.

On November 28, 2025, the 4th Trademark Brand Talent Annual Conference, hosted by the China Trademark Association, was successfully held in Beijing. Attorney ZHAO Lei, a partner at Unitalen and recognized as one of the first batch of Distinguished Talents in 2023, was invited to attend and preside over the conference. Partners HUANG Ying, LI Chunya, and LIANG Ying, along with Attorneys TIAN Daliang and HUANG Bo—all designated as Distinguished Talents in the first batch of the 2025 Trademark Talent Pool—were also invited to the annual conference and received certificates at the event.

Previously, the China Trademark Association released the Announcement on the Evaluation Results of the Second Batch of Applications for Inclusion in the 2025 Trademark Talent Pool. Unitalen saw an additional batch of 23 trademark professionals successfully selected into the 2025 Trademark Talent Pool, including 2 at the Senior Grade II (formerly Associate Senior Grade), 13 at Grade I, and 8 at Grade II. With this latest addition, over a hundred trademark professionals from Unitalen have now been included in the Trademark Talent Pool.