HOME > English > Laws > Patent

The China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) issued its Decision on Revising the Guidelines for Patent Examination on November 10, 2025. To facilitate public understanding and application of these revisions, the following provides an overview and the interpretation of the main changes to the Guidelines for Patent Examination (hereinafter referred to as Guidelines).

I. Overview

(I) Background

The CPC Central Committee and the State Council have always been paying close attention to issues concerning intellectual property. General Secretary Xi Jinping indicates to enhance the comprehensiveness of the IP legal system and the quality and efficiency of IP examination. The report to the 20th National Congress of the Communist Party of China sets forth the objective to “strengthen legal protection of intellectual property rights, in order to establish a foundational system for all-around innovation.” Also it has been emphasized to strengthen the protection and application of intellectual property rights in the Recommendations of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China for Formulating the 15th Five-Year Plan for National Economic and Social Development approved by the Fourth Plenary Session of the 20th Central Committee of the Communist Party of China.

In practice, along with the rapid growth of new forms of business and new sectors, and the advancements in patent examination, new scenarios have emerged in the field of patents. These new scenarios impose new requirements on the patent examination work: first, the rules for patent examination need to be adapted to the new forms of business and new sectors including artificial intelligence; reasonable demands of innovators for the patent grant and post-grant work should be answered to; and the established models proven to be effective in the practice of patent examination should be further fortified and promoted.

In light of this, the Guidelines indeed need to be revised in order to respond to the new requirements for patent examination work from all sides, as an act to follow the important instructions and statements of General Secretary Xi Jinping and implement the decisions and plans of the CPC Central Committee and the State Council on issues concerning intellectual property rights.

(II) Revision Procedure

The CNIPA initiated the revision of the Guidelines in January 2025. A draft of the revision was formulated based on adequate survey of the needs of inventors and comprehensive review of the experience of examination practice, which was released to solicit public opinions from April 30 to June 15. The CNIPA also considered advice from letters from the public, symposiums, and field studies to address issues of public concern. Building on the feedback from the public, the draft of the revised Guidelines was further refined and approved by the CNIPA’s Administrative Operations Committee. On November 10, 2025, the revision was published under CNIPA Order No. 84 and is scheduled to take effect on January 1, 2026.

(III) Considerations and Main contents of the Revision

The revision of the Guidelines closely follows the guidance of Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era and fully implements the guiding principles from the 20th CPC National Congress and the second, third, and fourth plenary sessions of the 20th CPC Central Committee to enhance law-based protection for intellectual property rights. This revision accounts for the need to establish the examination criteria for patents relating to new forms of business and new sectors. It covers urgent practical issues for which solution-based consensus has been largely reached, including the following.

1. Rules for protection in new forms of business and new sectors have been specified, further boosting incentives for industrial innovation.

First, strengthening the examination for ethnics of artificial intelligence, specifying requirements for the drafting of artificial intelligence-related applications, providing examination examples, to match the development of artificial intelligence technology; second, adding new provisions specially formulated for the examination of patent applications relating to bitstream, specifying the examination criteria on eligibility and drafting, to keep up with the new trends of the rapid development of the streaming media industry; third, specifying the definition of “plant varieties,” expanding the scope of eligible matters, to add a reasonable and effective link to the new plant varieties protection system and strengthen intellectual property right protection in the seeds industry.

2. Standards and rules have been refined for examination of urgent practical issues.

First, specifying the handling of same-day dual filing of applications for both a utility model and an invention to allow the grant of a patent for invention only by abandoning the patent for utility model, to keep in line with the legislative intent; second, in accordance with the legal connotation and the essential requirements of the articles on inventiveness, specifying that a feature in the claim which does not contribute to the resolution of the technical problem does not usually confer inventiveness on the technical solution, to improve the drafting of patent application and the quality of examination; third, specifying the requirements for filling in the identification information of the inventor and the obligation of the agent to verify the identification and contact information of the applicant, to align to relevant articles and regulations for regulating the practice and behavior of agents and attorneys and uphold the order of patent application; fourth, refining the rules for calculating the additional application fee for filing and excluding the number of pages of computer-readable Sequence Listings submitted in prescribed formats from the calculation, to lighten the applicants’ burden; fifth, adjusting the provisions on the refunding circumstances, ensuring accuracy and promptness of refund; sixth, specifying to reject requests for invalidation declaration that are not filed in the petitioner’s genuine intent, to curb the abuse of the patent invalidation system; seventh, prescribing not to accept or review a request for invalidation declaration that is filed substantially on the same grounds and based on the same evidence, to accentuate the principle of res judicata; eighth, specifying that the decision made in the reexamination or invalidation procedure should highlight the resolution of fundamental disputes while keeping the contents of the decision in line with relevant standards; ninth, refining the rules of compensating for patent terms, specifying that the delay caused by the reexamination procedure where the Decision of Rejection is revoked based on new grounds stated or new evidence submitted by the petitioner is a reasonable delay in the process of patent grant.

3. Established practices in the examination practice have been fortified, providing better services for innovators.

First, clarifying the principle of on-demand examination, adding provisions on rapid examination, to conduct on-demand examination at a demanded speed, to satisfy the actual demand of the innovators; second, specifying the rules for divisional applications without priority claims upon filing, to guarantee the rights of the applicants of divisional applications to priority rights; third, specifying the meaning of relevant information at the time of the filing date as indicated in the patent certificate of an international application entering the Chinese national phase or a divisional application; fourth, specifying the formalities for submitting amendments in the invalidation declaration procedure and the rules for determining the text as the basis for examination, to facilitate clarifying the manner and contents of the amendments.

II. Revision of Examination Standards for Patent Applications in the Field of Artificial Intelligence

(I) Background

The CNIPA has refined the rules for examining artificial intelligence (AI)-related patent applications on several prior occasions. This revision, building on the Interim Guidelines for Patent Applications for Artificial Intelligence-Related Inventions issued in December 2024, seeks to meet the urgent demands of innovators and the developmental needs of the AI industry while promptly resolving practical difficulties encountered in the application and examination of AI-related patents, to thereby adapt to the wave of AI technology.

Based on practices and studies of patent examination of recent years, the CNIPA supplements and revises the examination standards for patent applications in the field of artificial intelligence, to improve the examination rules system in view of AI technological characteristics and governance requirements.

(II) Content of the Revision

Revision is made to Section 6 of Chapter 9, Part IIof the Guidelines, mainly involving the four aspects introduced below.

1. Title of the section has been refined to be more intuitive

The original title “Examination Criteria of Invention Applications Containing Algorithmic Features or Features of Business Rules and Methods” of Section 6 is modified to “Examination Criteria of Invention Applications Relating to AI, Big Data, and Similar Technologies Containing Algorithmic Features or Features of Business Rules and Methods”.

[Interpretation of the Revision]

The phrase “Relating to AI, Big Data, and Similar Technologies” has been added to accentuate that this section focuses on providing guidance for the examination of patent applications relating to new forms of business and new sectors including AI and big data.

2. Criteria for examination under Article 5, Paragraph 1 of Patent Law has been added.

(1) Refining object of examination for patent applications relating to AI and big data

The first sentence of “6.1 Basis for Examination,” which originally reads that “the examination shall be carried out on the solution for which protection is sought, that is, the solution defined by the claim”, is modified to “the examination shall be carried out on the solution for which protection is sought, that is, the solution defined by the claim. The contents of the specification shall be reviewed if necessary.” The phrase “The contents of the specification shall be reviewed if necessary” has been added.

(2) Introducing the criteria for examination under Article 5, Paragraph 1 of the Patent Law

“6.1.1 Examination under Article 5, Paragraph 1 of the Patent Law

For an application for an invention patent that contain algorithmic features or features of business rules and methods, if the data collection, label management, rule settings, recommendation decisions, or other elements involved contain content that violates the laws, social morality, or undermines public interests, such an invention shall not be granted a patent right under Article 5, Paragraph 1 of the Patent Law.”

Meanwhile, the original Sections 6.1.1 to 6.1.3 are renumbered consecutively.

[Interpretation of the Revision]

In order to direct AI-related technologies towards “good-faith intelligence” and ensure relevant contents of patent applications conform to national laws and regulations and meet the requirements of social morality, this new section introduces the examination criteria under Article 5, Paragraph 1 of the Patent Law and clearly sets forth that invention-creations involving AI and big data are strictly bound by the laws including Personal Information Protection Law of the People's Republic of China and shall not go against the laws, social morality, or undermine public interests.

Meanwhile, given that the object of examination under Article 5, Paragraph 1 of the Patent Law encompasses the entirety of the application document, both the technical solution defined by the claims and the disclosure contained in the specification should be reviewed; so the criteria in Section 6.1 is adapted to explicitly state that “The contents of the specification shall be reviewed if necessary.”

(3) Adding the examples for the circumstances where a patent shall not be granted under Article 5, Paragraph 1 of the Patent Law

Examples have been added to “6.2 Examination examples” to explain the examination criteria under Article 5, Paragraph 1 of the Patent Law, including [Example 1] “A Big Data-Based Mattresses Sales Assistance System in Shopping Malls” and [Example 2] “A Method for Establishing an Emergency Decision-Making Model for Unmanned Vehicles.”

[Interpretation of the Revision]

The new examination example [Example 1] aims to illustrate that patent applications related to artificial intelligence and big data must comply with national laws. If the implementation of technologies such as artificial intelligence violates relevant laws, it constitutes an invention-creation that contravenes the law as described in Article 5, Paragraph 1 of the Patent Law and cannot be granted a patent. The solution in [Example 1] seeks protection for a big data-based mattress sales assistance system in shopping malls. To capture customers' genuine reactions to mattresses and achieve targeted marketing, the system involves installing imaging devices in public areas to capture customers’ facial features and obtain their identification information without their informed consent. The use of image capture and facial recognition in commercial settings such as shopping malls for targeted mattress marketing is not essential for maintaining public safety. Furthermore, the application fails to specify that the involved data acquisition or information collection is lawful and compliant—such as performed upon individual customer consent. Therefore, this invention violates the Personal Information Protection Law.

The new examination example [Example 2] aims to illustrate that patent applications related to artificial intelligence and big data must avoid algorithmic discrimination to comply with social morality under Article 5, Paragraph 1 of the Patent Law. The algorithm for decision-making—in particular under uncertain conditions—must rely on a decision-making mechanism that aligns with the morals and ethics and is free of discriminatory or biased algorithmic rules. Otherwise, an invention-creation will be deemed a violation to the social morality under Article 5, Paragraph 1 of the Patent Law and shall not be granted a patent. The solution of [Example 2] seeks protection for a method for establishing an emergency decision-making model for unmanned vehicles. The method involves training the model to classify pedestrians by sex and age and designating pedestrians as “to-be-protected” and “to-be-collided” objects in emergency scenarios. By applying discriminatory decision-making based on sex and age, the solution violates the fundamental social values of respect for life and equality. In effect, it rigidly encodes and amplifies existing social prejudices within the algorithmic model, intensifying sex and age discrimination. This undermines fairness and harmony among social groups and runs counter to social morality.

3. Examination examples have been added to clarify the rules for assessing inventiveness of AI-related technologies.

Two examination examples have been added to “6.2 Examination Examples,” i.e., [Example 18] of “A method for identifying number of vessels” and [Example 19] of “A method for establishing a neural network model for scrap steel grading.”

[Interpretation of the Revision]

The Guidelines introduce two new examination examples to further clarify the rules for assessing inventiveness in patent applications in the field of artificial intelligence, addressing uncertainties arising from variations or similarities in application scenarios and processing objects that affect the inventiveness determination.

The new examination example [Example 18] is introduced to explain the considerations and the rules of inventiveness determination in a case where the application scenario varies while the algorithm or model is the same. Where the algorithm or model of a solution claimed in an application, despite differing in application scenarios and processing objects compared with the prior art, does not introduce substantive changes in the elements such as algorithmic workflow or model parameters, the solution typically lacks inventive step. [Example 18] claims a method for identifying number of vessels, which employs conventional deep learning techniques to train a model for identifying the number of vessels. The only difference from cited Reference 1, which identifies fruits on trees, lies in the identification object. Although vessels and fruits differ in appearance, volume, and environmental context, the application introduces no adjustments or improvements to the underlying deep learning approach, model construction, or training process to account for this change in identification object, as compared to Reference 1. Furthermore, those skilled in the art recognize that the essential steps for identifying different objects—such as information labeling, dataset partitioning, and model training—are fundamentally the same. Consequently, the technical solution claimed in the invention lacks inventive step.

The new examination example [Example 19] is introduced to explain the considerations and the rules of inventiveness determination in a case where the application scenario is the same or similar while the algorithm or model varies. Where the claimed solution, despite of the same or similar application scenario, introduces substantive changes in algorithmic workflow, model parameter, or other aspects, as compared to the prior art, while the prior art does not encompass the technical teaching for making such changes, and the application resolves a different technical problem and achieves an advantageous technical effect, the solution possesses inventiveness. [Example 19] claims a method for establishing a neural network model for scrap steel grading. By training the convolutional neural network to generate a grading model that outputs grading results, it is possible to improve the efficiency and accuracy of scrap steel grading. Cited Reference 1 realizes scrap steel type recognition by feature extraction and model training based on image data of scrap steel of which the type have been determined in advance. Although the application is adapted for an application scenario similar to that of Reference 1—both pertaining to scrap steel recognition—it differs from Reference 1 in terms of the technical problem to be solved and the technical means employed. To identify the shape and thickness of scrap steel, the application requires extracting features such as color, edges, and texture of the scrap steel. Due to the distinct features extracted and trained, the application introduces corresponding adjustments and improvements to the number of lines and layer configurations in the convolutional and pooling layers. The prior art does not provide corresponding technical guidance. Therefore, the technical solution claimed in the invention possesses inventiveness.

4. The drafting of application documents has been further regulated to improve the quality of applications.

(1) Introducing the requirements for the drafting of patent applications in the field of artificial intelligence

The following new provision has been added to “6.3.1 Drafting of Description”: “where the construction or training of an artificial intelligent model is involved, the description should generally clearly disclose the model’s essential modules, layers, or connection relationships, as well as the specific steps and parameters used for training. For a patent application involving the application of an artificial intelligence model or algorithm to a specific field or scenario, the description should generally clearly disclose how the model or algorithm is integrated into that specific field or scenario and how the input and output data of the algorithm or model is configured to demonstrate the inherent relationship, thereby enabling a person skilled in the art to implement the invention based on the information disclosed in the description.”

[Interpretation of the Revision]

The new provision addresses two common scenarios in patent applications for AI-related inventions. Given that algorithms and models often exhibit “black box” characteristics—where their internal structures and operational mechanisms are hardly directly observable—this provision clarifies the specific standards for the drafting of the description to satisfy the sufficient disclosure requirement. This aims to enhance the quality of patent applications, ensure that the relevant technologies are fully disclosed to the public, and promote the dissemination and innovation of artificial intelligence technologies.

Specifically, for a patent application for an invention relating to the construction or training of an artificial intelligent model, the modular structure, hierarchical design, or connection relationship defines the core architecture of the model. The specific training steps, parameters, and other details reflect the optimization method and should therefore be disclosed in the description. For a patent application relating to the specific application of an artificial intelligence model or algorithm, the core typically lies in how the model or algorithm integrates with specific domains or scenarios, and how the input and output data of the algorithm or model are configured. All such aspects must be clearly disclosed in the description.

(2) Adding a new section to enumerate examination examples for sufficient disclosure of the description.

A new section “6.3.3 Examination Examples” has been added to provide examples demonstrating examination under Article 26, Paragraph 3 of the Patent Law, i.e., [Example 20] of “A method for generating facial features” and [Example 21] of “A method for predicting cancer based on biological information.”

[Interpretation of the Revision]

New examination example [Example 20] demonstrates that when an algorithm or model (such as an AI system) is employed to solve a technical problem in a specific field, the omission of certain technical means from the description does not lead to insufficient disclosure—provided those means constitute common general knowledge in the relevant technical field for solving that problem, even if they are not explicitly disclosed in the application. [Example 20] relates to a method for predicting cancer based on biological information. To address the technical problem of improving the accuracy of generated facial images, a spatial transformation network may be configured in the first convolutional neural network to identify feature regions in facial images. The description does not disclose the specific location of the spatial transformation network within the first convolutional neural network. However, those skilled in the art recognize that the spatial transformation network, as a whole, can be inserted at any position within the model without affecting its ability to identify feature regions in images. Therefore, the solution can be considered to have been fully disclosed in the description.

New examination example [Example 21] demonstrates that when an algorithm or model (such as an AI system) is employed to solve a technical problem in a specific field, if the employed means (including the inherent relationship of the input and output) is neither explicitly described in the application document nor the common general knowledge, and the solution cannot be specifically implemented based on the description to resolve the corresponding technical problem, it shall be deemed that the application document fails to sufficiently disclose the solution claimed by the invention. [Example 21] is directed to a method for predicting cancer based on biological information and addresses the technical problem of how to improve the accuracy of malignant tumor prediction. A trained malignant tumor enhancement screening model is used, with blood routine test results, facial image features and the like jointly as input data for the screening model, to generate the output data of the malignant tumor prevalence prediction value. However, the description does not disclose which blood test indicators and facial image features correlate with the accuracy of malignant tumor diagnosis, nor can they be determined by those skilled in the art. Therefore, this solution is not fully disclosed in the description.

(III) Summary

This revision represents the latest initiative in the CNIPA’s ongoing efforts to refine the patent examination standards for patents in the fields of artificial intelligence and big data over recent years. Grounded in the developmental needs of the AI industry and informed by practical examination challenges, it establishes clear guidance in various aspects—including ethical compliance, inventiveness, and sufficiency of disclosure—for both innovators and examiners.

Based on this revision, the Guidelines have refined the examination standards for applications in the field of artificial intelligence to cope with the needs for boosting technological development, which will enhance the quality and efficiency of patent examination in the field of artificial intelligence and effectively encourage further technological innovation.

III. Revision of Examination Standards for Patent Applications Relating to Bitstream

(I) Background

The streaming media industry has become an important engine driving the upgrade of cultural industries and a new growth driver for the digital economy. Currently, approximately 80% of online data flow consists of bitstreams generated by video encoding and decoding technology. This technology enables a significant reduction in storage and transmission costs while ensuring high video resolution and has therefore become the foundational technology and critical enabler supporting the rapid development of new business forms and sectors such as live streaming, video conferencing, cloud gaming, and virtual reality.

To support streaming media industry in fostering new quality productive forces with intellectual property as a key factor and creating a market environment of fair competition, this revision introduces new examination rules and drafting requirements for patent applications related to “bitstream”, to thereby promote technological advancement, enhance intellectual property protection for innovation drivers in the streaming media industry, guide innovators in new forms of business and new sectors to better leverage the patent system, and provide foundational institutional support for technological innovation in the streaming media industry.

(II) Content of the Revision

To align with the trends of developments of the streaming media industry and technology, the CNIPA conducted multiple rounds of research, extensively solicited feedback from rights holders and implementers in the streaming media industry, and systematically reviewed the rules for examination and protection for “bitstream” claims established by major global intellectual property examination authorities. Building upon the broadest consensus among rights holders, implementers, and consumers in the streaming media industry, and considering the needs of industrial development, Section 7 has been added to Chapter 9 of Part II of the Guidelines. This new section provides specific provisions for examining the subject matter of patent applications for inventions involving bitstreams, as well as for the drafting of the description and claims. The revision mainly involves the following aspects.

1. The drafting requirements for pure bitstream claims have been clarified.

“7.1.1 Examination under Article 25, Paragraph 1(2) of Patent Law” of Chapter 9, Part IIof the Guidelines specifies that where the subject matter of a claim only concerns a pure bitstream, the claim falls under the category of rules and methods for intellectual activities as specified in Article 25, Paragraph 1(2) of the Patent Law and is not eligible for patent protection.

[Interpretation of the Revision]

The bitstream generated by a video encoding method constitutes data capable of restoring video at the decoding end through a predefined syntax and structure. In terms of patentable subject matter, the bitstream shares functional similarities with a data structure of predefined organization or with a signal emphasizing physical characteristics and information transmission functionality. Currently, data structures and signals are not eligible for patent protection. Accordingly, this revision to the Guidelines clarifies that a pure bitstream does not constitute patentable subject matter.

2. The drafting requirements for process claims directed to storing/transmitting a bitstream have been clarified.

“7.2.2 Drafting of Claims” of Chapter 9, Part IIof the Guidelines specifies that a process claims directed to storing/transmitting a bitstream must include steps for executing a video encoding method and involves performing storage/transmission of a bitstream generated by the video encoding method. The following drafting examples are provided:

“A method for storing a bitstream, comprising: performing the video encoding method according to claim 1 to generate a bitstream; and storing the bitstream.

A method for transmitting a bitstream, comprising: performing the video encoding method according to claim 1 to generate a bitstream; and transmitting the bitstream.”

[Interpretation of the Revision]

By utilizing efficient compression algorithms, video encoding technology substantially reduces the data volume of raw video while preserving image quality. This enables ultra-low latency, high-resolution, and smooth video interaction. The steps for implementing a video encoding method form the technical foundation and critical safeguard for efficient resource allocation in both bitstream storage and transmission. These steps substantially reduce storage space and bandwidth requirements, constituting an indispensable part of a technical solution for storing or transmitting a bitstream. From the perspective of claim interpretation, such a solution must therefore be distinguished from a solution merely concerning storing or transmitting bitstreams without substantively employing a video encoding method.

This revision to the Guidelines clarifies the drafting requirements for a process claim directed to storing or transmitting a bitstream. It sets forth that such a process claim must be based on a claim for a specific video encoding process that generates the bitstream. Furthermore, the claim may be drafted to reference that specific video encoding process claim or to incorporate all of its features.

3. The drafting requirements for computer-readable storage medium claims directed to storing a bitstream have been clarified.

“7.2.2 Drafting of Claims” of Chapter 9, Part IIof the Guidelines specifies that a computer-readable storage medium claims directed to storing a bitstream should include “medium+program/instructions+bitstream+processor executing the program/instructions to implement video encoding method to generate the bitstream.” The following specific example of the drafting manner is provided:

“A computer-readable storage medium having a computer program/instructions stored thereon, wherein the computer program/instructions, when executed by a processor, implement(s) the video encoding method according to claim 1 to generate the bitstream.”

[Interpretation of the Revision]

To achieve comprehensive protection for technical solutions involving a bitstream and to provide innovators with both process and product claim options to facilitate rights enforcement, this revision to the Guidelines clarifies the format and requirements for drafting product claims encompassing bitstreams. Specifically, the revised Guidelines clarify that product claim must be drafted as a computer-readable storage medium containing a bitstream. This aligns with existing provisions in Chapter 9 of Part II of the Guidelines. Furthermore, taking the technical characteristics of this related art into account, the Guidelines further emphasize that only a claim constructed in the format “medium+program/instructions+bitstream+processor executing the program/instructions to implement video encoding method to generate the bitstream” will satisfy the drafting requirements.

(III) Summary

This revision establishes a foundational framework for enhancing patent protection for technological innovations in the streaming media industry. It represents a significant measure to strengthen intellectual property protection and foster the development of new quality productive forces for new forms of business and new sectors.

IV. Revision of Examination Standards for Patent Applications in the Field of Biological Breeding

(I) Purpose of the Revision

Developing new plant varieties requires significant investment and involves lengthy timelines. Intermediate breeding materials are crucial and foundational to cultivating new varieties but are highly susceptible to replication and loss. In recent years, with the large-scale application of transgenic and gene-editing technologies in breeding, a large amount of intermediate materials with both breeding and economic value have been generated in the course of breeding. The recently amended Regulations on the Protection of New Plant Varieties were promulgated on April 29, 2025, and came into effect on June 1, 2025. The scope of “plant varieties” in the previous Guidelines was not precisely aligned with the definitions in the Seed Law and the Regulations on the Protection of New Plant Varieties, resulting in a lack of effective IP protection for intermediate breeding materials. The current revision of the Guidelines clarifies the definition of “plant varieties,” ensuring consistency with relevant laws and regulations and addressing the needs of innovators.

(II) Content of the Revision

1. Definition of “Plant Varieties”

The following definition of “plant varieties” has been added to Section 4.4 (“Animal and Plant Varieties”) of Chapter 1 in Part II of the Guidelines: “In the Patent Law, ‘plant varieties’ refers to plant groups that have been artificially bred or discovered and improved, are homogeneous in morphological and biological characteristics, and are relatively stable in genetic traits.”

[Interpretation of the Revision]

The definition of “plant varieties” in the Guidelines has been aligned with the relevant definition in the Seed Law to establish effective coordination between the patent system and the new plant variety protection system, thereby eliminating gaps in the IP protection of innovations in the seed industry. The revision meets the requirements of the International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (1978 Act), to which China is a party, and aligns with the legislative intent of the Patent Law, thereby better promoting the development of the biological breeding industry.

2. Naturally Occurring Wild Plants as Scientific Discoveries

This clause has been added to Section 9.1.2.3 (Animals, Plants, and Their Parts”) of Chapter 10 in Part II of the Guidelines: “Wild plants found in nature that exist naturally and have not undergone technical processing are scientific discoveries under Article 25.1(1) of the Patent Law and are not eligible for patent rights. However, when wild plants have been artificially bred or improved and are industrially applicable, the plants themselves do not belong under the category of scientific discoveries.

[Interpretation of the Revision]

This revision makes clear that naturally occurring wild plants which have not been artificially bred or improved and in which no human technologies intervene are considered scientific discoveries and not patentable eligible subject matter. In line with the provisions on wild microorganisms and naturally occurring genes or DNA fragments in the Guidelines, the phrase “wild plants found in nature that exist naturally and have not undergone technical processing” has been explicitly added as a scientific discovery that is not eligible for patent rights, whereas “wild plants that have been artificially bred or improved and are industrially applicable” are not a scientific discovery.

3. Determination Principle for “Plant Varieties”

Section 9.1.2.3, “Animals, Plants, and Their Parts,” of Chapter 10 in Part II of the Guidelines stipulates as follows: According to the definition of “plant varieties” given in Section 4.4 of Chapter 1 in this Part, plants and their propagating materials obtained through artificial breeding or improvement of discovered wild plants cannot be considered ‘plant varieties’—and thus do not fall under the scope of Article 25.1(4) of the Patent Law—if they are not homogeneous in morphological and biological characteristics or are not relatively stable in genetic traits within their population.”

[Interpretation of the Revision]

This revision clarifies the principle for determining what a “plant variety.” is Specifically, whether claimed subject matter qualifies as a “plant variety” shall be determined based on a substantive assessment of the technical solution set forth in the claim and on the content disclosed in the application. The key analysis focuses on whether the claimed plant or its propagating material is homogeneous and stable in principal features across its population. Homogeneous means that individuals within a plant population, apart from predictable natural variations, are homogeneous in relevant characteristics or traits. Stable means that the principal features of a plant population remain unchanged after repeated propagation or at the end of a specific propagation cycle. In examination practice, the determination of a “plant variety” varies depending on circumstance as follows:

If a claim explicitly seeks protection for a plant variety or its propagating material, for example, “a genetically modified soybean variety,” it is determined that it falls within the scope of a plant variety.

If the claimed plant or its propagating material is obtained through asexual propagation and all the individuals are genetically identical clones of the parent, then the claimed plant or its propagating material is homogeneous and stable across the population and qualifies as a plant variety.

If a claim recites a specific plant population or its propagating material, for example, “a genetically modified soybean line ZUTT-32, using soybean Zhonghuang 13 as the transformation receptor and containing the transgenic event shown in SEQ ID NO:1,” or “a high-yield cotton obtained by three rounds of hybridization and backcross selection using Xinluzao No. 9 as the male parent and Jimian 169 as the female parent, followed by two generations of inbreeding,” then questions arise as to whether the claimed subject matter satisfies the requirement for a “plant variety.” Since different plants may require varying breeding conditions and methods to have homogeneous and stable traits within the population, one skilled in the art may find it difficult to determine, based solely on the breeding method described in the application, whether the population is homogeneous and stable in features. If the applicant fails to provide sufficient proof that the claimed plant population or its propagating material is not homogeneous and/or is not stable in features, it shall be deemed that the plant population or its propagating material qualifies as a plant variety.

If a claim seeks protection for a broad plant population or its propagating material defined only by DNA of a specific trait or functional protein sequence, and it does not recite a feature of the complete plant structure or the entire genomic information, then it is determined that the improved gene or protein and the target trait are applicable to numerous plant populations or individual plants. Such plant populations or individual plants, except for the gene or protein specified in the claim, do not share identical or highly similar genetic background, so the claimed plant population or its propagating material will not be homogeneous and stable in principal features. As a result, determined from the claim as a whole, the subject matter does not fall within the scope of a plant variety. For instance, if a claim is directed to “a drought-resistant rice containing an exogenous insertion gene as shown in SEQ ID NO:1,” the claimed subject matter is not a plant variety.

4. Provision on Determining Whether Genetically Modified Plants are “Plant Varieties”

In Section 9.1.2.4 (“Genetically Modified Animals and Plants”) of Chapter 10 in Part II of the Guidelines, the word “if” has been added before the sentence “it still falls within the scope of ‘animal varieties’ or ‘plant varieties’ as defined in Section 4.4 of Chapter 1 in this Part.”

[Interpretation of the Revision]

Due to the narrowing of the scope of “plant varieties” in the revision of the Guidelines, a genetically modified plant qualifies as a “plant variety” only if “it is homogeneous in morphological and biological characteristics and is relatively stable in genetic traits within its population.” Therefore, the added “if” signals the need to distinguish between different factual scenarios.

(III) Summary

The revisions of the examination standards for patent applications in the field of biological breeding are problem-oriented and intended to substantially strengthen patent protection for technological innovations in biological breeding. These changes provide more robust legal safeguards to the high-quality development of the breeding industry.

V. Revision to General Provisions on Substantive Examination of Inventions

(I) The handling of “same-day dual filing” has been refined.

1. Purpose of the Revision

To further standardize the handling of same-day dual filings—where the same applicant files both a utility model application and a patent for invention application for the same invention on the same date—and to better align examination practice with the needs of China’s current innovation landscape and the legislative intent of the Patent Law, this revision adjusts the substantive examination procedure for the corresponding application for invention. Specifically, it addresses the situation where the utility model from the same-day dual filing is granted earlier and has not been terminated.

2. Content of the Revision

The revision concerns “6.2.2 Handling of One Application and One Patent” of Chapter 3, Part IIof the Guidelines. It has been clarified that pursuant to Rule 47 of the Implementing Regulations of the Patent Law (hereinafter referred to as “Regulations”), the applicant shall, upon filing same-day applications, state in each application that another patent application has been filed for the same invention-creation. Failure to make such a statement shall trigger the handling procedure under Article 9, Paragraph 1 of the Patent Law, whereby only one patent may be granted for identical invention-creations. Where the applicant has made the statement and no grounds for rejecting the invention patent application are found during examination, the applicant shall be notified to abandon the patent for utility model. If the applicant does not consent to abandonment of the patent for utility model, the invention patent application shall be rejected; if the applicant fails to respond within the specified time limit, the invention patent application shall be deemed withdrawn. In addition, the provision that previously allowed the grant of a patent for invention based on amendments to the application has been appropriately deleted.

[Interpretation of the Revision]

Article 9 of the Patent Law stipulates that “For any identical invention-creation, only one patent right shall be granted”, legislatively embodying the principle of prohibiting double patenting. In the mid-1990s, to alleviate the severe backlog in examination of invention patent applications, China’s patent office permitted applicants to file both a utility model application and a patent for invention application for the same invention-creation on the same day. This allowed applicants to obtain rapid protection through a utility model grant while awaiting substantive examination of the corresponding invention patent application. Once the invention patent application met the requirements for grant, the applicant could relinquish the obtained patent for utility model and be granted a patent for invention. The “same-day dual filing” system was initially a temporary measure adopted to facilitate applicants in obtaining timely patent protection for their inventions. During the third amendment of the Patent Law in 2008, following extensive discussions and research on the “same-day dual filing” system, Article 9 of the Patent Law was amended to include a new paragraph stipulating: “For any identical invention-creation, only one patent right shall be granted. However, where the same applicant files applications for both a patent for utility model and a patent for invention with regard to the identical invention-creation on the same day, if the patent for utility model granted earlier has not been terminated and the applicant declares to abandon the patent for utility model, the invention patent may be granted.”

The landscape of patent application and examination has undergone significant transformation. China is transitioning from a major importer of intellectual property to a major creator, with a corresponding shift of the focus in the intellectual property work from quantity to quality. First, alongside the vigorous growth of new forms of business and new sectors, patent applications are increasingly concentrated in new technological fields such as artificial intelligence, big data, and genetic technology. Statistics show a consistent decline in the demand from innovators for “same-day dual filing.” Second, as the CNIPA continues to enhance patent examination efficiency, the period required for examination of invention patent applications has been significantly shortened, reaching the fastest internationally under comparable examination systems. Third, in recent years, the CNIPA has continuously improved its patent examination mechanism, enabling applicants to obtain quick protection through multiple other channels than “same-day dual filing.”

To better implement the “same-day dual filing” system in accordance with Article 9, Paragraph 1 of the Patent Law as amended in 2008, ensure the public’s timely access to relevant patent application information, and proactively prevent infringement claims arising from lack of knowledge, the 2010 amendment of the Regulations introduced paragraphs 2 through 5 to Article 41 (now Article 47 of the Regulations) to outline the specific handling procedures and corresponding legal consequences of the “same-day dual filing” system. Notably, paragraph 2 and paragraph 4 established strict requirements regarding the obligations of the applicant on the statement of “same-day dual filing” and the procedures for abandoning the patent for utility model in exchange for the grant of a patent for invention, respectively. Paragraph 2 specifies that for “same-day dual filing,” the applicant must, in each application, state the fact of “same-day dual filing” at the time of filing so that the CNIPA can promptly publish the information, allowing the public to know upon seeing the patent for utility model that a corresponding invention patent application may be granted later. In addition, the statement also enables the examiner to notify the applicant in the substantive examination of the invention patent application to abandon the patent for utility model that has been granted, thereby preventing double patenting. If the applicant fails to specify the fact of “same-day dual filing” at the time of filing, the invention patent application will be rejected pursuant to Article 9, Paragraph 1 of the Patent Law, even if no other grounds for rejection is found. Paragraph 4 stipulates the procedure for notifying the applicant to abandon the patent for utility model prior to granting the invention patent. Specifically, if no grounds for rejection are found during examination of the invention patent application, the applicant shall be notified to declare abandonment of the patent for utility model within a specified period. If the applicant refuses to abandon the patent for utility model, the invention patent application will be rejected. Thus, under the provisions of the Patent Law and its Implementing Regulations, applicants must strictly follow the procedure of abandoning the patent for utility models in order to have the invention patent application granted, provided all the other conditions for patentability have been met.

Therefore, in light of the new circumstances and characteristics of patent application and examination work, it is necessary to adjust the provisions of the Guidelines on the handling of “same-day dual filing” to better align with the legislative intent of the Patent Law and its Implementing Regulations. The “same-day dual filing” system constitutes an exception to the prohibition on double patenting. This revision emphasizes that applicants must fulfill their statutory procedural obligations in order to avail themselves of the convenience offered by the “same-day dual filing” system. Accordingly, the revised Guidelines clarify the handling procedures and highlight the distinct requirements for the two scenarios determined by whether the applicant has fulfilled the obligation to make the required statement. This revision adheres to the original intent of the system, more accurately reflects the provisions of the Patent Law and its Implementing Regulations, and balances the interests of rights holders and the public.

(II) The examination standards for inventiveness have been refined.

1. Purpose of the Revision

This revision is made to further enhance the quality and efficiency of patent examination, promote high-level innovation and effective utilization through high-quality examination, and fully leverage the “two-way transmission” by patent examination. Based on the revision, the criteria for assessing inventiveness have been refined. In accordance with the legal connotation and the essential requirements of the articles on inventiveness in the Patent Law, key considerations in inventiveness examination have been further clarified and highlighted, providing guidance for applicants to focus more on articulating the substantive aspects of inventions when drafting the application document, ensuring better and more timely protection for genuine invention-creations, to thereby further encourage innovation and creation.

2. Content of the Revision

The revision to concerns refinement of Section 6.4 of “6. Considerations in Examination for Inventiveness” in Chapter 4, Part IIof the Guidelines. The revision mainly includes: i. clarifying that a feature in the claim which does not contribute to the resolution of the technical problem does not usually confer inventiveness on the technical solution, with an example enumerated to explain this principle; ii. appropriately adjusting the position of the contents relating to overall review of the technical solution in Section 6.4.

[Interpretation of the Revision]

The assessment of inventiveness shall be conducted in accordance with the principle and the criteria stipulated in Section 3 of Chapter 4, Part IIof the Guidelines. This revision does not alter the method or concept of the inventiveness assessment. Instead, it is intended to highlight that in order to assess the inventiveness, the examiner must correctly understand and grasp the essence of the invention. The examiner must avoid determining inventiveness based merely on the number of distinguishing technical features or the scope of the claims and must ensure that the granted claims accurately correspond to the contribution truly made by the invention to the prior art.

It should be noted that, the technical problem referred to in the revision generally indicates the technical problem determined during examination to be actually solved by the invention. It may occasionally refer to the technical problem the invention is intended to solve, as set forth in the description. In determining the feature in the claim which does not contribute to the resolution of the technical problem, the examiner should make the determination from the perspective of a person skilled in the art, taking into account the content of the application, the prior art, the opinions stated by the applicant, and the like.

(III) Summary

The revision to the general provisions on substantive examination of invention patent applications mainly concerns “same-day dual filing” and inventiveness. The revision to the provisions on “same-day dual filing” is strict implementation of the provisions of Article 9, Paragraph 1 of the Patent Law and Article 47 of the Regulations concerning the handling in the scenario that both an invention patent application and a utility model patent application are filed, restoring the legislative intent of the “same-day dual filing” system, conserving administrative and judicial resources while better balancing the interests of rights holders and the public. The revision to the provisions on inventiveness on one hand further emphasizes that the examination must be objective and impartial assessment of the invention based on a correct understanding of the invention and an accurate grasp of its essence, ensuring that the granted claims accurately correspond to the contribution made by the invention to the prior art. On the other hand, it clarifies to the public that the inventiveness requirement is the legal standard for the level of innovation required of an invention. Technical features in the claims that do not contribute to the resolution of the technical problem—no matter how numerous—cannot confer inventiveness. This guidance encourages applicants to draft claims appropriately to enhance the protection for invention-creations.

VI. Revision to the Provisions on Examination of Requests for Reexamination and for Invalidation

(I) Purpose of the Revision

The revision to the part of the Guidelines on the examination of requests for reexamination and for invalidation concerns the composition of an examination decision, the principles of examination in the invalidation procedure, eligibility of petitioners for invalidation declaration, and submission of amended patent documents during the invalidation procedure. Building upon accumulated examination experience, the revision elaborates and optimizes existing provisions to enhance examination efficiency and quality. Furthermore, application of relevant legal provisions has been clarified to proactively address the needs of innovators and support high-quality development.

(II) Content of the Revision

1. Composition of an examination decision

In Section 6.2 of Chapter 1, Part IVof the Guidelines, the original phrase “An examination decision shall include the following parts” has been amended to “An examination decision typically includes the following parts;” and the phrase “The reexamination decision to revoke a decision of rejection may simplify or omit the part of case summary” has been deleted.

[Interpretation of the Revision]

This revision addresses the composition of a reexamination decision. In terms of the general provisions, it has been clarified that the contents listed in this section constitute the typical structure of a reexamination decision, not a fixed structure, allowing optimization in individual cases. Regarding specific content, the provision allowing for simplifying or omitting the case summary in a decision solely concerning the revocation of a decision of rejection have been deleted to align with the general provisions. By optimizing the drafting of the reexamination decision, the resolution of substantive disputes is highlighted while ensuring the standardization of the decision, thereby enhancing quality and efficiency of examination.

2. Regarding the principle of res judicata

In Sections 2.1 and 3.3 of Chapter 3, Part IV, the original phrase “the same grounds and evidence” has been amended to “the same or substantially the same grounds and evidence.”

[Interpretation of the Revision]

Rule 70.2 of the Regulations stipulate the principle of res judicata, that is, “after the Patent Administration Department of the State Council has made a decision on a request for invalidation declaration, the Patent Administration Department of the State Council does not accept another request for invalidation declaration submitted based on the same grounds and evidence.”

The Guidelines have also stipulated corresponding provisions in Chapter 3 of Part IV, which sets out the principles of examination in the procedure of invalidation declaration and the part concerning the scope, grounds, and evidence of a request for invalidation declaration. Hence, when more than one request for invalidation declaration are filed against the same patent right, this principle serves to prevent conflicting decisions, preserve the res judicata effect of prior rulings, constrain duplicative litigation, avoid imposing unnecessary defense burdens on the right holder, and prevent the waste of administrative resources.

It has been widely accepted by the practitioners that the phrase “the same grounds and evidence” in the afore-mentioned provision of the Guidelines should be understood as “the same or substantially the same grounds and evidence.” However, in practice, after a collegial panel has ruled on an invalidation request, the petitioner sometimes resubmits a request having made only formalistic, superficial adjustments to the phrasing of the grounds and evidence. It is therefore necessary to address this issue in this revision to the Guidelines, to guide petitioners to file the requests lawfully and reasonably and prevent imposing unnecessary litigation burdens on right holders, thereby enhance the overall quality and efficiency of examination.

The following two example cases further illustrate the concept of “substantially the same grounds and evidence.” In a first example case, an earlier petitioner submitted a request for invalidation declaration, arguing that claim 1 lacked support in the description because Feature B encompassed multiple implementations among which only one was described in the description. A decision was been made to reject the above argument. After that, a subsequent petitioner filed a request, arguing that Feature B was a functional limitation and a person skilled in the art could not determine that how to achieve the function using means not disclosed in the description, so the claim lacked support in the description. The earlier and subsequent requests, although differing in wording, were made substantively based on the same grounds. Hence, the grounds for invalidation are substantially the same. In another case, the earlier petitioner argued that claim 1 lacked inventiveness in view of Evidence 1 and common general knowledge. A decision was made on the request of the earlier petitioner, finding that claim 1 had a distinguishing technical feature as compared to Evidence 1 and thus possesses inventiveness. A subsequent petitioner then argued that claim 1 lacked novelty over the same Evidence 1. However, the earlier decision had already determined that claim 1 possessed a distinguishing technical feature over Evidence 1, which inherently established its novelty. Hence, the grounds and evidence related to novelty in the subsequent request are substantially the same as those related to inventiveness already concluded upon in the earlier decision.

3. Regarding Eligibility as a Petitioner for Invalidation

In Section 3.2 of Chapter III, Part IV of the Guidelines concerning the eligibility of petitioners for invalidation, a new circumstance has been added to clarify that a petition for invalidation shall not be accepted if it is not filed in accordance with the petitioner's true intent. Following the principle of "general provisions precede specific provisions" for non-acceptance scenarios, this rule is now listed as Item (2).

[Interpretation of the Revision]

Pursuant to Article 45 of the Patent Law, while any entity or individual may file a request for a patent invalidation declaration, they must do so based on the genuine belief that “the grant of the patent right is not in conformity with the relevant provisions of this Law.” The genuine expression of intent is an inherent requirement of Article 45. In practice, however, instances have emerged where requests are filed in another person’s name without authorization. Such filings do not reflect the genuine intent of the purported petitioner and are often accompanied by acts such as forging signatures on request forms or fabricating power-of-attorney documents. This conduct violates the principle of good faith, undermines the credibility of the patent invalidation system, and disrupts market competition order.

4. Regarding Submission of Amended Documents in the Invalidation Procedure

In Section 4.6 “Amendment to Patent Documents in the Invalidation Procedure” of Chapter 3, Part IVof the Guidelines, a new subsection titled “4.6.4 Submission of Amended Documents in the Invalidation Procedure” has been added. This subsection specifies the formal requirements for submitting amended documents and establishes the rules for determining the basis for examination when multiple versions are submitted.

[Interpretation of the Revision]

Although patent holders may amend the claims during invalidation proceedings, the Guidelines currently lack specific provisions regarding the formal requirements for submitting amended documents and the rules for determining the basis for examination. Consequently, patent holders may submit amendments without a clear statement of the changes, which subsequently impedes the enforcement of their rights. Furthermore, in examination practice, there are instances where the patent holder submits multiple versions of amended claims within the allowable period. This creates uncertainty for both parties as to which is the definitive text under examination, hindering the petitioner’s ability to formulate a legal response and impeding the overall efficiency of case adjudication. Therefore, it is necessary to address the above two procedural aspects in the Guidelines.

Regarding the formal requirements for submitting amended documents, with reference to Section 5.2.4.1 of Chapter 8, Part IIwith regard to the provisions for “Submission of Replacement Sheet” in the substantive examination, it has been clarified that the patent holder shall, in the invalidation procedure, clearly state all amendments by submitting a “replacement sheet with a table of comparison of the amendments.” In particular, the comparison table will guide the patent holder in systematically listing the amendments to each claim and help prevent unintended errors.

Regarding the rules for determining the basis for examination when multiple versions are submitted, the revised Guidelines specify that, in cases where multiple versions of amended documents are submitted by the patent holder within the same review period and comply with Section 4.6.3 (“Restrictions on Manners of Amendment”), the last version submitted shall prevail; all previously submitted versions shall not form the basis for examination. This rule enables both parties to accurately predict the examination basis and significantly improves examination efficiency.

(III) Summary

The revision to the Guidelines concerning reexamination and invalidation procedures is centered on two core objectives: to enhance the quality and efficiency of reexamination, and to clarify the application of legal provisions. It provides clearer operational guidance for future reexamination work while offering better service for innovators.

VII. Revision to Provisions Concerning Preliminary Examination and Processing of Procedural Matters

(I) Purpose of the Revision

To further protect the innovative achievements of innovators and facilitate applicants, adjustments and improvements have been made to the Guidelines. The changes pertain to Chapter 1 of Part I, “Preliminary Examination of Patent Applications for Invention;” Chapter 1 of Part III, “Preliminary Examination of International Applications Entering the National Phase and Processing of Procedural Matters Therefore;” and Part V, “Processing of Patent Applications and Procedural Matters.”

(II) Content of the Revision

1. Regarding Preliminary Examination of Patent Applications for Invention

(1) Regarding Information on the Applicant filed in the Application Form and Obligations of the Agency

The following has been clarified in Section 4.1.2 “Inventor” of Chapter 1, Part I: First, “False inventors shall not be listed.” Second, the examiner “generally” does not review whether the inventors listed in the application form comply with this provision, “except where evidence indicates otherwise.” Third, the inventors shall be individuals (i.e., natural persons), and “identity information of all inventors shall be filled in the application form, and the authenticity of such information shall be ensured.”

It has been clarified in Section 4.1.6 “Patent Agency and Patent Agent” of Chapter 1, Part Iof the Guidelines that: “The patent agency shall verify the identity and contact information of the applicant as filled in the submitted application form. Where a patent agency or patent attorney files a patent application or requests the invalidation of a patent right in their own name, such actions shall be handled in accordance with the Regulations on Patent Agency.”

[Interpretation of the Revision]

The revised Guidelines have introduced requirements for the inventors and the authenticity of their information, along with obligations for patent agencies to verify the identity and contact information of the applicant. These requirements are aligned with the relevant laws and regulations to standardize the professional conduct of patent agencies and patent agents.

(2) Regarding Declaration of Claiming Priority of Divisional Applications

In the sections “6.2.1.2 Declaration of Claiming Priority” and “6.2.2.2 Declaration of Claiming Priority” of Chapter 1, Part Iof the Guidelines, it has been clarified that where a divisional application is filed from an original application that claimed priority, but the applicant does not declare claiming the priority in the application form of the divisional application, the divisional application shall be deemed not to claim the priority, and the examiner shall issue the Notification that Claim to Priority Deemed Not to Have Been Made.

[Interpretation of the Revision]

The revised Guidelines have clarified that in the case that the original application claims priority while the application form of the divisional application does not include the declaration of claiming priority, the examiner shall issue the Notification that Claim to Priority Deemed Not to Have Been Made. This provision is intended to prompt the applicants to request restoration of priority right for the divisional application in accordance with Section 6.2.6.1 of Chapter 1, Part I of the Guidelines and clarifies the procedural timing for applicants to lawfully restore their rights.

2. Regarding Examination of International Applications Entering the National Phase

(1) Regarding Signatures and Seals on Certifying Documents for Transfer of Priority

In Section 5.2.3.2 “Submission of Certification of Enjoying Right of Priority” of Chapter 1, Part IIIof the Guidelines, the term “assignor” has been modified to “all applicants of the earlier application.”

[Interpretation of the Revision]

In the review of priority right, the examiner shall determine whether the applicant of the later application is the same as that of the earlier application. Where the applicants are inconsistent and the applicant of the later application claims to have acquired the priority right through assignment or gift, certifying documents for the transfer of priority duly signed or sealed by all applicants of the earlier application shall be submitted.

In this revision, the term “assignor” has been modified to “all applicants of the earlier application” to better align with the legal norms and to maintain consistency with the wording of relevant contents in Sections 6.2.1.4 and 6.2.2.4 of Chapter 1, Part Iand Section 5.2.6 of Chapter 1, Part III.

(2) Regarding the Rules for Calculation of Additional Application Fee Charged for Sequence Listing

First, the fee calculation provision for sequence listings exceeding 400 pages in Section 7.3 “Other Special Fees” of Chapter 1, Part III of the Guidelines has been deleted. Second, the following provision has been added to Section 1 “Time Limit for Payment of Fees” of Chapter 2, Part V of the Guidelines: “The number of pages of computer-readable Sequence Listings submitted in prescribed formats shall not be counted in the calculation.”

[Interpretation of the Revision]

This revision has adjusted the rules for the calculation the fee charged for sequence listings. Specifically, the number of pages of computer-readable sequence listings submitted in prescribed formats is excluded from the calculation, and the provision of charging for sequence listings exceeding 400 pages is deleted for international applications entering the Chinese national phase. Hence, fees for sequence listings are now applied uniformly to both national applications and international applications entering the national phase, in a manner that aligns with international practice.

It should be noted that the additional application fee for national applications filed in paper is still charged based on the number of pages of the sequence listings.

3. Regarding the Provisions on Processing of Patent Applications and Procedural Matters

(1) Regarding Circumstances of Refund

The entirety of Section 4.2.1.2 of Chapter 2, Part V, “Circumstances of Refund on the Patent Office’s Own Initiative,” has been incorporated into Section 4.2.1.1 “Circumstances of Request for Refund,” thereby eliminating the circumstances of refund on the patent office’s own initiative as a standalone category. Additionally, the revision has introduced new circumstances for refunds related to divisional applications.

[Interpretation of the Revision]

Refunds initiated by the CNIPA often fail due to incomplete or outdated information concerning the relevant parties. To ensure the accuracy and promptness of refund processing, the Guidelines have been revised. Specifically, all circumstances previously warranting a refund on the CNIPA’s own initiative have now been incorporated into the circumstances where the concerned party may file a request for refund.

In addition, to align with examination practice, the revision introduces the following new provision: for a divisional application that has not yet entered substantive examination, if it is deemed not to have been filed, any substantive examination fee already paid will be refundable. This constitutes a circumstance where the concerned party may file a request for refund.

(2) Regarding the Order of Examination

First, Section 8.1 “General Principles” of Chapter 7, Part Vhas introduced the following provision: at the applicant’s request, a patent application may be subject to on-demand examination, including prioritized examination, expedited examination, or deferred examination.

Second, a new section of “Expedited Examination” has been introduced, as Section 8.3, into Section 8 of Chapter 7, Part V, which specifies that patent applications that have passed the preliminary examination by a national-level intellectual property protection center or rapid rights protection center and meet the relevant requirements for expedited examination are eligible for expedited examination.

[Interpretation of the Revision]

In recent years, the CNIPA continues to expand the channel of on-demand examination, specifically by optimizing the accelerated examination channels of prioritized examination, Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH), expedited examination, and the like, and launching new examination policies of concentrated examination and deferred examination. These have been covered in the revised Guidelines to further reflect the principle of on-demand examination at a demanded speed.

In addition, the CNIPA actively promotes to build protection centers and rapid rights protection centers, which provide non-profit professional services—such as preliminary examination—for relevant local industrial entities, aiming to enhance innovation quality and promote industrial development. The Guidelines have been revised to include an explanation of the accelerated examination system, thereby further refining the legal framework.

(3) Regarding the entries of Patent Gazette

First, in Section 1.3.2.6 of Chapter 8, Part V, “Compensation for Patent Term,” the term “expiration date of patent term” has been modified to “date of termination of the patent right.” Second, in Section 1.3.2.7 of Chapter 8, Part V, “Taking Effect, Change and Cancellation of Submission for Record of License Contract for Patent Exploitation,” the term “assignor” has been modified to “licensor,” and the term “assignee” has been modified to “licensee.”

[Interpretation of the Revision]

The revised term “date of termination of the patent right” is consistent with the expression of the other parts of the Guidelines. The revised term “licensor” and “licensee” are consistent with the expression with other laws including the Civil Code.

(4) Regarding Composition of Patent Certificate

The Guidelines have introduced the following explanation to Section 1.2.1 of Chapter 9, Part V, “Composition of Patent Certificate”: For an international application or a divisional application, the name of inventor or designer and the name of applicant at the time of filing as recorded in the patent certificate refer to the name of inventor or designer and the name of applicant at the time when the international application enters the Chinese national phase or at the time when the divisional application is filed.

[Interpretation of the Revision]

The Guidelines have been revised to clarify that for an international application or a divisional application, the relevant information at the time of the filing date refers to information at the time when the international application enters the Chinese national phase or at the time of the filing date of the divisional application.

(5) Regarding Compensation for Patent Term

Section 2.2.1 of Chapter 9, Part V has been clarified to state the following: where a Decision of Rejection is revoked in a reexamination procedure based on new grounds or evidence submitted by the petitioner, the delay caused by the reexamination procedure constitutes a reasonable delay under Rule 78.3(3) of the Implementing Regulations.

[Interpretation of the Revision]

A delay caused by a reexamination procedure involving amendments under Rule 66 of the Implementing Regulations constitutes a reasonable delay. However, in addition to amending the application document, the applicant may overcome the defect pointed out in the Decision of Rejection by stating opinions or submitting evidence during the reexamination procedure. If such opinions or evidence—not presented during substantive examination—are submitted for the first time in reexamination procedure and form the basis for revoking the Decision of Rejection, the resulting delay shall also be considered reasonable and not subject to compensation for the patent term.

(III) Summary

This revision of the Guidelines refines and clarifies provisions related to preliminary examination and the processing of procedural matters, thereby facilitating applicants while enhancing the quality and efficiency of the preliminary examination process.
 
In summary, guided by Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era, this revision of the Guidelines strengthens the protection system for new forms of business and sectors—such as artificial intelligence, bitstream, and biological breeding—thereby providing greater incentive for industrial innovation. It optimizes examination standards and rules to address pressing practical issues and improve quality of patent examination, while affirming established practices to better serve innovators. Overall, the revision enhances the legal framework for intellectual property rights protection, stimulating innovation vitality across society.
 

Published on 2025-12-04

Source: China National Intellectual Property Administration