Recently, the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) announced the theme of World IP Day 2026: "Intellectual Property and Sports: Ready, Set, Innovate!" World IP Day 2026 will shine a light on IP and sports, highlighting how IP drives creativity and innovation across the sports industry.

(Source: China Intellectual Property News)

To ensure the accuracy and validity of International Patent Classification (IPC) codes for Chinese patent documents, the CNIPA will adopt IPC (Version 2026.01) starting from January 1, 2026, for the classification, publication, and announcement of Chinese patent documents.

Compared with IPC (Version 2025.01), the new IPC has revised 1,615 classification codes, including 517 newly added and 206 deleted.

To facilitate the study and application of the new IPC, the CNIPA has translated and compiled relevant materials involving the new IPC (Version 2026.01), including the IPC Classification Table, Classification Definitions, and a Comparison Table between the Old and New Versions, all of which are available via the official website of the CNIPA.

Website: https://www.cnipa.gov.cn/col/col3161/index.html

(Source: the CNIPA)

Under the requirements of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), all member states of the Nice Union shall adopt the 2026 Text of the 13th Edition of the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks (i.e., the Nice Classification) in due form as of January 1, 2026. For applications for trademark registration filed on or after January 1, 2026, the new version of the Nice Classification shall apply to the classification of goods and services; for those filed prior to the said date, the previous version of the Nice Classification shall apply.

Based on the Nice Classification, the Trademark Office has made corresponding adjustments to the Classification Table of Similar Goods and Services and hereby publishes the Nice Classification together with the revision of the Classification Table of Similar Goods and Services.

Attachment: NCL (13-2026) Chinese version and the revision of the Classification Table (Public Version)

(Source: Trademark Office of the CNIPA)

According to a joint decision made by the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA), the European Patent Office (EPO), the Japan Patent Office (JPO), the Ministry of Intellectual Property (MOIP) of the Republic of Korea, and the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), the IP5 Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) pilot program will be extended for another three years, from January 6, 2026 to January 5, 2029. The requirements and procedures for applicants to file PPH requests under the pilot program will remain unchanged.

(Source: the CNIPA)

The China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) and the Industrial Property Office of the Czech Republic have jointly decided to extend their Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) pilot program for three years from January 1, 2026, to December 31, 2028. The requirements and procedures for submitting PPH requests to both offices remain unchanged.

(Source: the CNIPA)

The China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) has launched a pilot program to prioritize examination of invention patents filed in mainland China by applicants from the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region since January 1, 2023. For eligible patent applications for inventions submitted by applicants from the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, requests for prioritized examination may be submitted through the Guangzhou Agency and the Shenzhen Agency of the CNIPA. Over the past three years, nearly 200 invention patent applications submitted by applicants from the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region have entered the prioritized examination pathway under this program. Starting January 1, 2026, the CNIPA will implement the program on a regular basis to further support Hong Kong Special Administrative Region residents in protecting their intellectual property in mainland China more conveniently and efficiently, thereby promoting innovation and development in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.

(Source: the CNIPA)

Recently, the Supreme People's Court rendered second-instance judgments on two cases represented by Unitalen Law Office: 1. The case of technical secret infringement dispute filed by Shanghai Cathay Biotech Inc. and Cathay (Jinxiang) Biomaterials Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Cathay Biotech") against Shandong Hanlin Biotechnology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Shandong Hanlin") and its legal representative CAO XX, as well as former employees WANG XX and GE XX of Cathay Biotech [Case No.: (2022) Zui Gao Fa Zhi Min Zhong No. 445]; 2. The case of an invention patent infringement dispute filed by Cathay Biotech against Shandong Hanlin and Shandong Guiyuan Biotechnology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Shandong Guiyuan") [Case No.: (2023) Zui Gao Fa Zhi Min Zhong No. 3178]. Cathay Biotech received favorable second-instance judgments in both cases.

The Case (2022) Zui Gao Fa Zhi Min Zhong No. 445 is a civil infringement lawsuit initiated against the infringing entities and individuals involved in a prior criminal case related to trade secrets. In the second-instance judgment of this case, in addition to ordering the infringing party to immediately cease disclosing, using, or permitting others to use the identified trade secrets in question, including infringing acts such as leasing production lines to circumvent infringement, and confirming that Cathay Biotech is entitled to a general claim of RMB 28,874,473.02 against Shandong Hanlin, the court further ordered CAO XX and WANG XX to bear joint and several liability for the aforementioned debts, and GE XX to bear joint and several liability for RMB 8,662,341.90 of those debts.

In the Case (2023) Zui Gao Fa Zhi Min Zhong No. 3178, a dispute case over invention patent infringement, it was ruled that Shandong Guiyuan shall immediately cease using the patent method in question owned by Cathay Biotech, stop selling long carbon chain dicarboxylic acid products directly obtained by virtue of the patent method, compensate Cathay Biotech for economic losses of RMB 30 million, and Shandong Hanlin shall bear joint and several liability for compensation. In this case, given the malicious infringement committed by Shandong Hanlin and Shandong Guiyuan and the serious infringement circumstances arising therefrom, the courts in both instances applied punitive damages twice the amount of the compensatory damages.

The second-instance judgments in both cases have safeguarded Cathay Biotech's legitimate rights and interests, demonstrating the judiciary's robust protection of innovative achievements. The victories in two cases are attributable to unwavering trust in Cathay Biotech and its strong technical support, as well as the legal team's in-depth research, proactive evidence presentation, and precise grasp of the legal issues at play.

Recently, Unitalen Law Office represented a large state-owned enterprise group in China and its subsidiary branches, successfully handling a dispute involving unfair competition involving novel e-commerce business models, such as live-streaming sales and advertising-driven traffic generation.

Case Background

Against the backdrop of actively responding to the policy to benefit and assist farmers, our client launched live-streaming sales campaigns on TikTok to promote local specialty products, such as "white birch sap," under several brands from Northeast China. During the live-streaming period, the plaintiff sued a large state-owned enterprise group in China and its subsidiary branches, alleging that the defendants engaged in unfair competition by "broadcasting A to sell B" through "illegal traffic-driving live streaming". Additionally, the plaintiff claimed that the defendants infringed its trademark and design patent rights during the live stream, thereby constituting unfair competition, and sought compensation exceeding 10 million yuan.

Case Focus and Challenges

This case focuses on the legal characterization of whether the common sales means, such as live-streaming sales under the TikTok model, which constitute an act of unfair competition, and also covers multidimensional legal issues such as trademark infringement determination and delimitation of design patent infringement.

After accepting the commission, Unitalen's legal team promptly launched an in-depth investigation and thoroughly reviewed the facts of the case and the platform's rules. Through investigating TikTok’s live-streaming model and its "Selective Alliance" service agreement, the legitimacy of video traffic-driving activities, the defense of trademark exhaustion, and whether the sued act has specific distinctiveness, the team obtained, by means of defense, key evidence demonstrating the absence of the "broadcasting A to sell B", such as authorizations under platform rules and live-streaming sales data. Based on these comprehensive defenses, Unitalen's attorney team argued that the sued act did not constitute unfair competition, trademark infringement, or design patent infringement.

Court Judgment Result

After two court sessions, the court fully adopted our argument, determining that the plaintiff's allegation of the unfair practice of "broadcasting A to sell B" through live-streaming traffic generation was not established. Our client's live-streaming traffic-driving activities were legally authorized, and the live stream complied with the TikTok e-commerce platform's policies and guidelines. Accordingly, the court rejected all the plaintiff's claims in accordance with the law, including those regarding trademark infringement, patent infringement, and unfair competition.

Case Value and Enlightenment

This case represents a typical composite intellectual property dispute involving the novel business models of live-streaming e-commerce and advertising-driven traffic generation. The victory in this case not only spared the client from significant economic losses but also set a practical and referenceable precedent for handling similar composite disputes involving "unfair competition + trademark + patent" issues.

Recently, Unitalen Law Office represented JL MAG Rare-Earth Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "JL MAG") in a patent invalidation procedure, and successfully maintained the validity of an invention patent related to slotted magnets, providing strong support for protecting the client's invention and innovation.

Summary of the Case

Previously, JL MAG, the patentee, received an invalidity request from the opposing party seeking to invalidate one of its slotted magnet patents.

After accepting the commission from JL MAG, the Unitalen team conducted an in-depth study of the granted text of the patent, its prosecution history, and multiple prior art documents submitted by the petitioner. The team also engaged in multiple rounds of communication and discussion with the patent manager and the inventor of JL MAG, gaining a thorough understanding of the differences between the patent at issue and the closest prior art with respect to the technical problems to be solved and the overall technical concept. On this basis, the team further clarified multiple distinguishing technical features of Claim 1 of the patent at issue relative to the closest prior art, the technical problems solved by those features, and the technical effects thereby achieved. Before the oral hearing, the Unitalen team also sought common-knowledge evidence to further demonstrate the differences between the patent at issue and the closest prior art with respect to the technical concept and the technical effects of the distinguishing features. Ultimately, the collegiate panel concluded that the closest prior art did not provide technical enlightenment on the adoption of the distinguishing technical features, and the petitioner did not submit evidence to prove that the corresponding distinguishing technical features were common knowledge. Since the adoption of these distinguishing technical features enabled the technical solution of Claim 1 to achieve beneficial technical effects, both Claim 1 and its dependent claims all involve an inventive step.

The successful maintenance of the patent's validity in this case is attributable to the patentee's trust and strong technical support, as well as the Unitalen team's in-depth research and analysis of the patent and prior technical documents.

Recently, Intellectual Asset Management (referred to as "IAM"), an internationally professional intellectual property media outlet, released the list of 2026 IAM Strategy 300 Global Leaders (Intellectual Property Strategy Global Leaders). Three partners from Unitalen—ZHAO Lei, LI Zeyan, and ZHENG Bin—have earned a place on this prestigious list in recognition of their outstanding capabilities and stellar reputation in the field of intellectual property.

On December 27, 2025, the 2026 Welcome Party and Annual Award Ceremony co-hosted by the Shanghai International School of Chief Technology Officer (hereinafter referred to as "CTO School") of East China Normal University and the Asia Europe Business School (Joint Academic of Science and Business) of East China Normal University was grandly held at the Lecture Hall of the Science Auditorium of the Putuo Campus.

During the award ceremony, the Shanghai Branch of Unitalen Law Office was awarded the 2025 Outstanding Contribution to Industry-Education Integration Award.