News
RSS 
中文 日本語 English Deutsch  | 
Guide : In this case, we filed an invalidation request against the design patent titled Shop Front (Milk Tea Shop) with a prior trademark right as evidence, which was approved by th...
Guide : In this case, we filed an invalidation request against the design patent titled Shop Front (Milk Tea Shop) with a prior trademark right as evidence, which was approved by th...
The Decision on Amendment to Patent Examination Guidelines by the State Intellectual Property Office (SIPO) (No. 67)

Decision on Amendment to Patent Examination Guidelines by the State Intellectual Property Office (SIPO), which has been deliberated and approved by the bureau meeting of SIPO, is hereby announced and takes into effect as from October 15, 2013.

 Director
September 16, 2013

Decision on Amendment to Patent Examination Guidelines by the State Intellectual Property Office (SIPO)

SIPO decides to make the following amendments to the Patent Examination Guidelines:

I.Amending Section 11, Chapter 2 of Part I into:

11. Examination in accordance with Article 22.2 of the Patent Law

In the preliminary examination, the examiner may examine whether the patent application for a utility model is obviously lack of novelty according to the information of prior art or conflicting applications he obtained.

Where a patent application for a utility model is applied improperly, such as an application obviously plagiarizing prior art or an application with substantially identical content, the examiner shall determine whether the application is obviously lack of novelty based on the reference documents he retrieved by search or the information he obtained in other ways.

Chapter 3, Part II of the Guidelines shall be used for reference in the examination of novelty.

II.Amending Section 13, Chapter 2 of Part I into:

13. Examination in Accordance with Article 9 of the Patent Law

Article 9.1 of the Patent Law provides that only one patent shall be granted for identical invention-creations. Article 9.2 provides that where two or more applicants file patent applications for the identical invention-creation, the patent shall be granted to the applicant whose application was filed first.

In the preliminary examination, the examiner may examine whether the utility model application complies with the provisions in Article 9 of the Patent Law according to the patents or patent applications of identical invention-creations he obtained.

Section 6, Chapter 3 of Part II of the Guideline shall be used for reference when to deal with identical invention-creations.

III. Amending Section 8, Chapter 3 of Part I into:

Examination in Accordance with Article 23 (1) of the Patent Law

In the preliminary examination, the examiner may examine whether the design application obviously fails to meet the provisions in Article 23.1 of the Patent Law according to the information of prior design or conflicting applications he obtained.

Where an application for the design is applied improperly, such as an application obviously plagiarizing prior design or an application with substantially identical content, the examiner shall determine whether the application obviously fails to meet the provisions in Article 23.1 of the Patent Law according to the reference documents he retrieved by search or the information he obtained in other ways.

Chapter 5 of Part V of the Guideline shall be used for reference in the examination of identical applications or the applications with substantially identical content.

IV. Amending Section 11, Chapter 3 of Part I into:

11. Examination in Accordance with Article 9 of the Patent Law

Article 9.1 of the Patent Law provides that only one patent shall be granted for identical invention-creations. Article 9.2 provides that where two or more applicants file patent applications for the identical invention-creations, the patent shall be granted to the applicant whose application was filed first.

In the preliminary examination, the examiner may examine whether the design application complies with the provisions in Article 9 of the Patent Law according to the patented designs or patent applications of identical designs that he obtained.

This Decision takes effects as from October 15, 2013.

Date: November 6, 2013             
Source: State Intellectual Property Office

About us | Contact us | Favorite | Home Page
©2008-2025 By Linda Liu & Partners, All Rights Reserved.