India Releases Comprehensive Concept Note on Proposed Amendments to the Designs Act, 2000: Paradigm Shift Toward Digital Innovation and International Integration

 

Summary

The Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks has published a comprehensive Concept Note outlining transformative amendments to the Designs Act, 2000. The proposed reforms introduce groundbreaking protection for non-tangible design forms including GUIs, virtual reality interfaces, and animations; clarify the design-copyright interface to prevent perpetual monopolies; establish a full 12-month grace period for all types of disclosures; enable deferred publication aligned with the Hague Agreement; introduce statutory damages up to ₹50 lakhs for willful infringement; restructure protection terms to a 5+5+5 system; permit multiple designs in single applications; enable divisional applications; and incorporate comprehensive provisions for international registration under the Hague Agreement, positioning India as a global hub for design innovation.

Overview: A New Era for Indian Design Protection

The Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks has released a groundbreaking Concept Note detailing comprehensive amendments to the Designs Act, 2000. These proposed reforms represent the most significant transformation of India's design protection framework since the Act's inception, systematically addressing the protection of digital and virtual designs, resolving longstanding ambiguities at the design-copyright interface, introducing procedural flexibilities aligned with international best practices, strengthening enforcement mechanisms through statutory damages, and paving the way for India's accession to the Hague Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Industrial Designs. The amendments signal India's commitment to fostering innovation in both physical and digital design spaces while integrating into the global intellectual property ecosystem under the principle of "Design in India, Design for the World."

I. Extension of Design Protection to Non-Tangible Forms

1. Current Legal Framework and Its Limitations

The existing Designs Act, 2000 defines both "article" and "design" with explicit reference to physical embodiment. Under current law, a design is defined as features of shape, configuration, pattern, ornamentation, or composition of lines or colors applied to any article, where "article" is understood to mean a tangible, physical object capable of independent existence. This definition creates substantial uncertainty regarding the registrability of designs that exist in purely digital or virtual forms, such as:

• 
  
• Graphical User Interfaces (GUIs): Visual interfaces displayed on computer screens, mobile devices, or other electronic displays
• 
  
• Icons and Fonts: Graphical symbols and typographic designs used in digital environments
• 
  
• Augmented Reality (AR) and Virtual Reality (VR) Interfaces: Interactive visual elements displayed in immersive digital environments
• 
  
• Animations and Transitions: Dynamic visual effects that change over time in response to user interaction or system events
• 
  
• Virtual Products: Designs for products that exist solely in digital spaces, such as virtual fashion items or digital collectibles

The requirement of physical embodiment has created ambiguity as to whether such designs can be protected under the Act, despite their substantial commercial value and the significant creative effort invested in their development.

2. Proposed Amendments to Definitions

The proposed amendments will fundamentally expand the definitions of "design" and "article" to explicitly cover non-physical forms. The revised definitions will:

• 
  
• Decouple design protection from physical embodiment: Remove the requirement that a design must be applied to a tangible carrier or physical product
• 
  
• Explicitly include digital manifestations: Recognize GUIs, AR/VR interfaces, animations, transitions, and other digital aesthetic elements as protectable designs
• 
  
• Extend coverage to purely virtual products: Provide protection for designs of products that exist solely in digital or virtual environments, without requiring any physical counterpart

3. International Alignment

This reform aligns India with recent developments in major jurisdictions:

• European Union: The EU has reformed its design protection regime to explicitly cover animations and intangible products
• United Kingdom: The UK Intellectual Property Office has issued proposals clarifying that GUIs qualify as "products" eligible for design registration
• Locarno Classification: The international Locarno Classification system for industrial designs has been updated to include classes for screen displays, icons, and graphical symbols—classifications that India has already adopted in practice

By removing the physical embodiment requirement, India will harmonize its design law with international trends and ensure that designers of digital products receive the same level of protection as designers of physical products.

II. Clarification of the Design-Copyright Interface

1. The Current Ambiguity

Section 15 of the Copyright Act, 1957 provides that once a design is registered under the Designs Act, it loses copyright protection and becomes subject exclusively to design law. However, the provision creates uncertainty for designs that are registrable but not actually registered—that is, designs that meet the substantive requirements for design registration but which the creator chooses not to register or has not yet registered.

This ambiguity creates a risk of perpetual copyright monopolies: if a creator refrains from registering a registrable design, the design may enjoy copyright protection for the life of the author plus 60 years (under Indian copyright law), far exceeding the 15-year maximum term of design protection. This effectively allows creators to circumvent the limited term of design protection by avoiding registration.

2. Proposed Amendment to Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act

The proposed amendment will explicitly amend Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957 to provide that:

• 
  
• Designs that are registrable under the Designs Act—whether or not actually registered—may still enjoy copyright protection
• 
  
• However, such copyright protection will be limited to a maximum term of 15 years, aligning with the maximum protection term available under the Designs Act

This reform achieves several critical policy objectives:

• 
  
• Prevents perpetual monopolies: By capping copyright protection for registrable designs at 15 years, the amendment prevents creators from using copyright law to obtain protection far beyond what design law would permit
• 
  
• Harmonizes overlapping regimes: The amendment reconciles the tension between copyright and design law by ensuring that subject matter eligible for design protection cannot be monopolized indefinitely through copyright
• 
  
• Balances commercial lifespan with public access: Fifteen years represents a period sufficient to protect the commercial value of most industrial designs while ensuring timely entry into the public domain
• 
  
• Provides statutory certainty: By explicitly addressing registrable-but-unregistered designs, the amendment eliminates longstanding ambiguity in Indian intellectual property law

III. Introduction of a Full 12-Month Grace Period

1. Current Limitation: Six-Month Exhibition-Based Grace Period

Section 21 of the current Designs Act provides only a six-month grace period for disclosures made through exhibitions that have been officially notified by the Central Government. This narrow grace period does not cover:

• 
  
• Online product launches and digital marketing campaigns
• 
  
• Crowdfunding platforms where designs are publicly disclosed to attract investment
• 
  
• Investor presentations and business pitches
• 
  
• E-commerce marketplaces and social media promotions
• 
  
• Trade shows and exhibitions not officially notified by the government

This limitation creates substantial risks for startups and new businesses, which often test market response before committing resources to formal registration, and which frequently rely on digital channels for product launches.

2. Proposed 12-Month Universal Grace Period

The amendment proposes to introduce a 12-month grace period for all forms of disclosure, regardless of the mode or medium through which the design is disclosed. Under the proposed framework:

• 
  
• A designer may publicly disclose a design through any channel—including online launches, crowdfunding campaigns, investor presentations, social media, digital marketplaces, exhibitions (whether or not officially notified), trade shows, or any other public forum
• 
  
• The designer will have 12 months from the date of first disclosure to file a design registration application
• 
  
• Disclosures made by the designer (or with the designer's consent) during this 12-month period will not be treated as prior art that would invalidate the design application

This reform provides critical benefits:

• Reduces risks of accidental disclosure: Designers will no longer forfeit protection due to premature or inadvertent public disclosure
• 
  
• Facilitates market testing: Businesses can gauge consumer interest and market response before incurring the costs of registration
• 
  
• Supports startups and small businesses: New ventures with limited resources can launch products and secure investment before committing to formal intellectual property protection
• 
  
• Aligns with international practice: Many jurisdictions, including the United States, provide grace periods of 12 months or more for design disclosures

IV. Introduction of Deferred Publication

1. Current Practice: Immediate Publication Upon Registration

Under the current Designs Act, registered designs are published immediately upon grant. While this ensures transparency and allows third parties to assess the scope of registered rights, it can create strategic disadvantages for applicants who wish to:

• 
  
• Maintain commercial secrecy during product development phases
• 
  
• Avoid alerting competitors to upcoming product launches
• 
  
• Delay disclosure until marketing and distribution channels are fully established

2. Proposed Deferment Period of Up to 30 Months

The amendment proposes to allow applicants to defer publication of registered designs for up to 30 months, aligning with the standards set by the Hague Agreement. Under the proposed framework:

• 
  
• Applicants may request deferral of publication at the time of filing or at any time before registration
• 
  
• The design will be examined and registered, but publication will be postponed for the requested deferment period (maximum 30 months)
• 
  
• During the deferment period, the design registration remains confidential and is not accessible to the public or to competitors
• 
  
• At the end of the deferment period (or earlier, at the applicant's request), the design will be published
• 
  
• Applicants may surrender the pending application or registration at any time up to one month before the expiry of the deferment period, allowing withdrawal if market conditions change

3. Innocent Infringer Defense

To balance the rights of design owners with the interests of third parties who may inadvertently infringe unpublished designs, the amendment introduces an innocent infringer defense. Under this defense, third parties who independently develop and commercialize similar designs during the deferment period—without knowledge of the unpublished registration—may avoid liability for infringement committed prior to publication, provided they can demonstrate good faith and independent creation.

V. Introduction of Statutory Damages for Willful Infringement

1. Current Enforcement Challenges

Under the existing Designs Act, design owners seeking remedies for infringement must prove actual damages, which often requires extensive evidence of lost sales, price erosion, or unjust enrichment. This evidentiary burden can be prohibitively expensive and time-consuming, particularly for small businesses and individual designers.

2. Proposed Statutory Damages Framework

The amendment proposes to introduce statutory damages as an alternative to actual damages, providing design owners with a streamlined enforcement mechanism. The proposed framework includes:

• 
  
• Statutory damages for willful infringement: Courts may award statutory damages ranging up to ₹50 lakhs (₹5 million) for first-time willful violations, without requiring proof of actual damages
• 
  
• Enhanced penalties for repeat offenders: Repeat infringers may face increased statutory damages to strengthen deterrence and protect design owners from serial violators
• 
  
• Judicial discretion: Courts will retain discretion to calibrate statutory damages based on the severity of the infringement, the commercial impact, the infringer's intent, and other relevant factors

This reform significantly strengthens enforcement by reducing the cost and complexity of design infringement litigation while providing meaningful deterrence against willful copying.

VI. Revised Term of Protection: Transition to 5+5+5 System

1. Current Term Structure

Under the existing Act, designs are registered for an initial term of 10 years, renewable for an additional 5 years, providing a maximum protection term of 15 years.

2. Proposed 5+5+5 System

The amendment proposes to shift to a 5+5+5 system, consisting of:

• 
  
• An initial term of 5 years from the date of registration
• 
  
• A first renewal of 5 years
• 
  
• A second renewal of 5 years

This structure aligns with the Hague Agreement and reflects the commercial reality that many designs lose market relevance after 5-10 years.

3. Policy Rationale

The proposed system is presented as ensuring that protection lasts only as long as designs remain commercially relevant, reducing the burden on applicants to pay for protection they may not need. However, it is worth noting that the current system already includes a renewal at the 10-year mark, so the primary practical effect of the new system is to introduce an earlier renewal decision point at 5 years, requiring applicants to affirmatively opt into continued protection rather than automatically receiving a 10-year initial term.

VII. Multiple Designs in Single Application

1. Current Limitation

Under the current Act, only one embodiment of a design may be protected in a single application. Applicants seeking to protect multiple design variants (e.g., different colorways, minor stylistic variations, or design options within a product line) must file separate applications for each variant, multiplying costs and administrative burdens.

2. Proposed Reform

The amendment proposes to permit filing of multiple designs within the same Locarno class under a single application. This reform will:

• 
  
• Reduce official fees and administrative paperwork
• 
  
• Simplify portfolio management for businesses with product families or design variants
• Align Indian practice with the Hague Agreement and international norms

VIII. Introduction of Divisional Applications

1. Purpose and Function

The amendment proposes to introduce divisional applications, which allow applicants to split a single application into multiple separate applications when:

• 
  
• Multiple distinct designs are claimed in a single application, and the examiner raises a unity objection
• 
  
• The applicant wishes to pursue different designs separately for strategic or commercial reasons
• 
  
• Objections arise to some but not all of the designs claimed, and the applicant wishes to expedite registration of allowable designs while continuing prosecution of objected designs

2. Benefits

Divisional applications prevent loss of rights over valid designs due to procedural hurdles and provide flexibility in managing complex design portfolios. Divisional applications typically retain the filing date of the parent application, preserving priority rights.

IX. Incorporation of International Registrations Under the Hague Agreement

1. Background on the Hague Agreement

The Hague Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Industrial Designs, administered by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), provides a streamlined mechanism for obtaining design protection in multiple countries through a single international application filed with WIPO. Applicants may designate multiple member countries, and WIPO transmits the application to each designated country's national office for examination and registration.

2. Proposed Amendment

The Concept Note proposes to incorporate a dedicated chapter for Hague Agreement filings into the Designs Act, establishing the legal framework necessary for India to accede to the Hague Agreement and participate in the international design registration system.

3. Strategic Significance

Accession to the Hague Agreement will:

• Integrate India into the global design ecosystem: Indian designers will be able to obtain protection in over 90 countries through a single WIPO filing
• Attract international filings: Foreign designers will be able to designate India as part of their international registrations, increasing the volume and diversity of designs registered in India
• Reduce costs and complexity: The centralized Hague system eliminates the need to file separate national applications in each country, reducing translation costs, agent fees, and administrative burdens
• Position India as a design innovation hub: Participation in the Hague system signals India's commitment to international intellectual property norms and its integration into global innovation networks

X. Conclusion: Toward a Modernized and Globally Integrated Design System

The proposed amendments to the Designs Act, 2000 represent a paradigm shift in India's approach to design protection. By extending protection to non-tangible forms such as GUIs, virtual reality interfaces, and animations, India acknowledges the centrality of digital design in the modern economy. By clarifying the design-copyright interface and capping copyright protection for registrable designs at 15 years, India prevents perpetual monopolies and harmonizes overlapping legal regimes. By introducing a full 12-month grace period covering all forms of disclosure, India reduces the risks faced by startups and supports market-driven innovation. By enabling deferred publication for up to 30 months, India allows designers to protect commercial secrecy during critical product development phases. By introducing statutory damages up to ₹50 lakhs for willful infringement, India strengthens enforcement and provides meaningful deterrence against design piracy. By restructuring the protection term to a 5+5+5 system, India aligns with the Hague Agreement and international best practices. By permitting multiple designs in a single application and introducing divisional applications, India reduces costs and administrative burdens while providing procedural flexibility. And by incorporating provisions for Hague Agreement international registrations, India integrates itself into the global design ecosystem and positions itself as a hub for design innovation under the principle of "Design in India, Design for the World."

These reforms collectively balance the need to incentivize innovation with the imperative of ensuring competitive access to design subject matter, strengthen the enforceability of design rights, modernize procedural frameworks to reflect digital and global realities, and integrate India into international intellectual property treaties and systems. For designers, businesses, and intellectual property practitioners, these amendments signal the beginning of a new era in which Indian design law is equipped to protect both the physical and virtual creations that drive innovation in the 21st century.

Significance

The proposed amendments, if enacted, will fundamentally transform the landscape of design protection in India. Designers of digital products—including software developers, UX/UI designers, virtual reality creators, and digital artists—will gain access to formal intellectual property protection previously unavailable under Indian law. Businesses will benefit from reduced costs, procedural flexibility, and stronger enforcement mechanisms. International applicants will find India a more attractive destination for design registration through the Hague system. And the Indian intellectual property system will be aligned with global standards and integrated into international frameworks, fulfilling the vision of positioning India as a leader in design innovation. The Controller General's Concept Note represents a comprehensive and forward-looking approach to design law reform, addressing both immediate practical concerns and long-term strategic objectives, and setting the stage for India to become a global hub for creativity and innovation in both physical and digital design.

China Unveils Major Amendments to Patent Examination Guidelines: New Standards for AI, Biotechnology, and Dual Filings Take Effect January 1, 2026

 

Summary

The China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) has announced comprehensive amendments to the Patent Examination Guidelines, effective January 1, 2026. The revised Guidelines introduce significant changes to inventor disclosure requirements, dual filing procedures, inventiveness assessment standards, re-examination protocols, and specialized examination criteria for artificial intelligence and bitstream-related inventions, marking a substantial modernization of China's patent examination framework.

Overview of the Revised Guidelines

On January 1, 2026, the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) will implement substantially revised Patent Examination Guidelines, introducing fundamental changes to patent examination procedures, substantive assessment criteria, and administrative practices. These amendments represent the most comprehensive update to China's patent examination framework in recent years, addressing emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence, refining established procedures for dual patent filings and divisional applications, strengthening examination standards for inventiveness, and modernizing re-examination and invalidation proceedings. The revised Guidelines will directly impact patent prosecution strategies, claim drafting practices, applicant disclosure obligations, and enforcement proceedings for all patents filed or examined in China after January 1, 2026.

I. Amendments to Preliminary Examination and Transaction Processing

1. Mandatory Completion of Inventor Information in Request Forms

The revised Guidelines introduce stricter requirements for inventor disclosure in patent applications. Under the new rules, only genuine inventors may be listed in the request form accompanying a patent application. An inventor is defined as a natural person who has made a substantive creative contribution to the technical solution claimed in the patent. Corporate entities, research institutions, or other legal persons cannot be designated as inventors, regardless of their role in funding or facilitating the research.

The amendments require applicants to provide complete identification information for all listed inventors at the time of filing, including ID card numbers for Chinese nationals or passport numbers for foreign inventors. This information must be included in the request form submitted to CNIPA when filing the patent application. Failure to provide complete inventor identification may result in formality objections during preliminary examination.

CNIPA examiners will generally not verify the accuracy of inventor designations unless there is credible evidence of non-compliance, such as disputes among named inventors, challenges from true inventors claiming omission, or documentary evidence indicating that listed individuals did not contribute to the invention. However, applicants bear full responsibility for ensuring the accuracy and completeness of inventor information, and false or fraudulent inventor designations may expose applicants to administrative penalties and invalidation risks.

2. Declaration of Priority in Divisional Applications

The revised Guidelines clarify the treatment of priority claims in divisional applications filed from parent applications. Under Chinese patent law, applicants may file divisional applications to pursue subject matter that was disclosed in a parent application but claimed separately, often to overcome unity of invention objections or to pursue distinct inventive concepts.

The amendments establish that if the parent application validly claimed priority from an earlier foreign or domestic application, but the divisional application fails to declare that priority claim in its request form, the divisional application will be deemed not to have claimed priority. This represents a stricter approach than prior practice, where priority claims were sometimes considered to be automatically inherited from the parent application.

However, the Guidelines provide a remedial mechanism: if an examiner determines that a divisional application should have claimed priority but failed to do so in the request form, the examiner will issue a notice of deemed non-claim of priority, providing the applicant with an opportunity to restore the priority claim within a prescribed time limit. Applicants should therefore ensure that all relevant priority claims are explicitly declared in divisional applications at the time of filing to avoid procedural complications and potential loss of priority rights.

3. Revised Calculation of Additional Official Fees for Lengthy Specifications

Chinese patent law imposes additional official fees for patent applications with specifications exceeding 30 pages, calculated on a sliding scale based on the total number of pages. The amendments introduce a significant exception for biotechnology and pharmaceutical inventions that include computer-readable sequence listings.

Under the revised Guidelines, when an applicant submits a sequence listing in the prescribed electronic format required by CNIPA (typically as a separate computer-readable file conforming to WIPO Standard ST.26), the pages comprising the sequence listing will no longer be counted toward the total page count of the specification for purposes of calculating additional fees. This change reduces the filing costs for biotechnology patents, which often include extensive nucleotide or amino acid sequences that would otherwise result in substantial fee surcharges.

To benefit from this exemption, applicants must ensure that sequence listings are submitted in the format and manner prescribed by CNIPA regulations. Sequence listings embedded in the body of the specification as plain text will continue to be counted toward page limits and fee calculations.

II. Amendments to Substantive Examination of Inventions

1. Stricter Handling of "Dual Applications on the Same Day"

Chinese patent law permits applicants to file both an invention patent application (subject to substantive examination with a longer prosecution timeline but a 20-year protection term) and a utility model patent application (subject to only formal examination with faster grant but a 10-year protection term) for the same technical solution on the same day, accompanied by a declaration in the request form. This "dual filing" strategy allows applicants to obtain rapid protection through the utility model while pursuing broader, long-term protection through the invention patent.

Under the previous Guidelines, if the invention patent application met all requirements for grant, the applicant could choose whether to retain the invention patent or the utility model patent, or to amend the invention patent claims to narrow their scope such that both patents could coexist without claiming identical subject matter.

The revised Guidelines eliminate this flexibility. Under the new rules, if the invention patent application is allowable and the applicant wishes to proceed with grant, the applicant must abandon the utility model patent. If the applicant refuses to abandon the utility model, the invention patent application will be rejected or deemed withdrawn. The option to amend the invention patent to differentiate it from the utility model and retain both patents has been removed.

This amendment reflects a policy shift aimed at preventing indefinite extension of patent term through strategic manipulation of dual filings. Applicants employing dual filing strategies should carefully consider which form of protection offers greater commercial value and be prepared to relinquish the utility model if the invention patent is granted.

2. Refined Examination Standards for Inventiveness (Non-Obviousness)

The revised Guidelines introduce clarifications to the assessment of inventive step, which is the Chinese equivalent of non-obviousness in other patent systems. Inventive step requires that a claimed invention is not obvious to a person skilled in the relevant technical field in light of the prior art.

The amendments clarify two critical principles:

First: The inventive step assessment is based solely on the claims. Technical features, effects, or advantages described in the specification or drawings but not recited in the claims will not be considered when evaluating whether the claimed invention represents an inventive advance over the prior art. This underscores the importance of comprehensive claim drafting and ensures that all technical features essential to the inventive concept are explicitly recited in the claims.

Second: Even if a technical feature is included in the claims, it will not be taken into account for inventive step assessment if it does not contribute to solving the technical problem addressed by the invention. In other words, claim features that are irrelevant to the inventive concept, or that represent routine design choices unrelated to the technical contribution, will be disregarded when assessing whether the claim as a whole would have been obvious. This prevents applicants from artificially creating inventiveness by adding technically insignificant features to otherwise obvious claims.

These clarifications emphasize the need for strategic claim drafting that clearly articulates the technical contribution and ensures that all claim elements are linked to the solution of a defined technical problem.

III. Amendments to Re-examination and Invalidation Procedures

1. Strengthened Principle of "Res Judicata"

The revised Guidelines strengthen the finality of invalidation decisions by expanding the application of the res judicata principle. Under previous practice, an invalidation request would not be accepted if it was based on the "same reasons and evidence" as a prior invalidation request that had already been decided.

The amendments broaden this prohibition to encompass requests based on "same or substantially the same reasons and evidence." This means that an invalidation request that merely repackages or reformulates arguments and evidence previously considered and rejected will be refused, even if the new request is not technically identical to the prior request.

This amendment serves several policy objectives: (i) preserving the finality and authority of invalidation decisions; (ii) limiting the ability of serial challengers to file repeated invalidation requests that burden patent owners with redundant defense costs; (iii) preventing abuse of the invalidation system by parties seeking to harass patent owners or delay enforcement; and (iv) conserving administrative resources by avoiding duplicative examination of issues that have already been resolved.

Parties contemplating invalidation challenges should ensure that all relevant grounds and evidence are presented in the initial invalidation request, as opportunities to raise new arguments based on the same evidence may be foreclosed by the res judicata principle.

2. Restrictions on Qualifications of Invalidation Requesters

The revised Guidelines explicitly state that invalidation requests must reflect the genuine intention of the requester and must be filed by or on behalf of the actual party seeking invalidation. This amendment addresses a growing problem in Chinese patent practice: the filing of invalidation requests under false names, often accompanied by forged signatures or fabricated authorization documents.

Such conduct violates the principle of good faith that underlies patent and administrative proceedings, undermines public confidence in the integrity of the patent invalidation system, and distorts fair competition by enabling anonymous or pseudonymous challenges that shield the true party in interest from accountability.

CNIPA may refuse to accept invalidation requests where there is evidence that the named requester is not the true party in interest, or where authorization documents appear to be fraudulent. Parties found to have submitted false or forged documents may face administrative penalties and potential referral for criminal prosecution.

IV. Amendments to Examination Standards for Artificial Intelligence Inventions

Specialized Requirements for Drafting AI Patent Specifications

Recognizing the rapid growth of patent applications related to artificial intelligence and machine learning, the revised Guidelines introduce specialized drafting requirements for AI-related inventions to ensure that patent disclosures are sufficiently detailed to enable persons skilled in the art to implement the claimed inventions.

For inventions involving the construction or training of AI models: The specification must clearly describe the essential architecture of the AI model, including key modules, layers, and their interconnections. For neural network-based models, this includes description of input layers, hidden layers, output layers, and the connections between them. The specification must also describe the training process, including the selection and preparation of training data, the configuration of training parameters (such as learning rates, batch sizes, and optimization algorithms), and the methodology for evaluating model performance.

For inventions involving the application of AI models or algorithms in specific technical fields: The specification must explain how the AI model or algorithm interacts with the relevant technical field or application scenario. This includes describing how input data specific to the field is configured and fed into the model, how the model processes that data in a manner relevant to the technical problem being solved, and how output data is generated and utilized to achieve the technical effect. The disclosure must demonstrate that there is an inherent correlation between the AI model and the specific technical application, such that the invention represents a concrete technical solution rather than an abstract algorithm.

These requirements are intended to prevent overbroad claiming of AI technologies and to ensure that AI patent disclosures provide sufficient technical detail to support the claimed scope of protection. Applicants should work closely with patent drafters who understand both AI technology and Chinese patent disclosure requirements to ensure compliance with these standards.

V. Amendments to Examination Standards for Bitstream-Related Inventions

1. Clarification that Simple Bitstream Claims Are Not Patent-Eligible

The revised Guidelines explicitly state that claims directed solely to a simple bitstream—without structural or functional limitations beyond the data content itself—fall under the category of "rules and methods of intellectual activity" and are therefore not eligible for patent protection under Chinese patent law.

A bitstream generated by a video coding method is essentially a functional dataset that enables reconstruction of video data at the decoding end through predefined syntax rules and data structures. At the patent protection level, bitstreams are functionally similar to abstract data structures (which define how data is organized) and signals (which emphasize physical transmission characteristics). Chinese patent law does not recognize data structures or abstract signals as patentable subject matter, and the revised Guidelines extend this exclusion to simple bitstream claims.

This clarification is particularly relevant to the video coding and telecommunications industries, where patent applications frequently include claims to bitstreams generated by novel encoding algorithms.

2. Permissible Claim Formats for Bitstream Storage and Transmission Methods

While claims directed solely to bitstreams are not patent-eligible, the revised Guidelines clarify that claims to methods of storing or transmitting bitstreams may be patentable if they include a step of performing a video encoding method that generates the bitstream, followed by a step of storing or transmitting the resulting bitstream.

In other words, the claim must recite the underlying technical process (encoding) that produces the bitstream, not merely the bitstream itself. This ensures that the claim is directed to a technical method rather than an abstract data structure.

3. Permissible Claim Formats for Computer-Readable Storage Media

The revised Guidelines also clarify the requirements for claims to computer-readable storage media storing bitstreams. Such claims must include three elements: (i) the storage medium itself; (ii) a program or instructions stored on the medium; and (iii) a bitstream stored on the medium, where the bitstream is generated by executing the program or instructions using a processor to perform a video encoding method.

This formulation ensures that the claim is tied to a concrete technical implementation involving executable code and hardware, rather than claiming the bitstream data in the abstract.

Strategic Implications for Patent Applicants

The amendments to the Patent Examination Guidelines reflect CNIPA's efforts to modernize China's patent system in response to rapid technological developments, particularly in artificial intelligence, biotechnology, and digital media. Patent applicants and practitioners should review pending and future applications to ensure compliance with the revised standards, particularly with respect to:

• Inventor disclosure: Ensuring complete and accurate identification information for all inventors.
• Dual filing strategies: Recognizing that invention patents and utility models cannot coexist for identical subject matter and planning accordingly.
• Claim drafting: Ensuring that all technical features essential to inventiveness are recited in the claims and contribute to solving the technical problem.
• AI disclosures: Providing detailed architectural and training information for AI models and demonstrating concrete technical applications.
• Bitstream claims: Formulating claims to bitstream-related inventions as methods or media claims that include the underlying encoding process.
• Re-examination and invalidation: Presenting comprehensive grounds and evidence in initial filings, recognizing the strengthened res judicata principle.

Significance

The January 1, 2026 amendments to China's Patent Examination Guidelines represent a comprehensive modernization of the country's patent examination framework, addressing critical procedural, substantive, and technological issues that have emerged as China's innovation economy has matured. The stricter requirements for inventor disclosure, the elimination of dual patent retention options, the refined inventiveness standards, the strengthened res judicata principle, and the specialized examination criteria for AI and bitstream inventions collectively signal CNIPA's commitment to raising patent quality, preventing strategic manipulation of patent procedures, and ensuring that the patent system adapts to emerging technologies. For domestic and international patent applicants, these amendments require careful attention to compliance, strategic adjustment of filing and prosecution practices, and enhanced coordination between technical experts and patent professionals to ensure that applications meet the new standards. The amendments also underscore China's continued integration into the global intellectual property system and its alignment with international best practices in patent examination.