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.
No comments:
Post a Comment