Disclaimer & Legal Notice: This bulletin is compiled for general informational purposes only and is a summary of publicly available information. It does not constitute legal advice, a legal opinion, or an attorney-client relationship of any kind. Nothing herein should be relied upon as the basis for any legal decision or action. For advice on specific matters, please consult a qualified attorney or intellectual property professional. © 2026 Foridom IP Law Firm. All rights reserved. Reproduction for commercial purposes without prior written consent is strictly prohibited.
Compliance Countdown — 3 Weeks
SAMR Trade Secret Protection Regulations take effect June 1, 2026
New administrative enforcement channel: injunctions, fines up to RMB 5 million, criminal referrals. See Section 02 for preparation checklist.
Section 01 / Executive Briefing
- CNIPA releases 2025 IP White Paper — 6.318 million valid patents, FRAND mediation breakthrough, 82.81/100 social satisfaction. The May 7 annual white paper provides the most comprehensive official account of China's IP system at the close of the 14th Five-Year Plan, with new data on FRAND administrative adjudication, plant variety enforcement, and cross-border IP dispute resolution.
- NP01154 corn variety case sets new plant variety punitive damages record: RMB 53 million. The case, highlighted in both the SPC's 2025 Annual Report and the white paper, signals that agricultural biotechnology IP — long considered weakly enforced in China — is now subject to the same high-award enforcement culture as technology patents.
- FRAND enters the administrative channel: Guangdong HEVC codec case resolved through mediation. A significant HEVC standard-essential patent dispute involving Access Advance's patent pool was resolved through FRAND-principled administrative adjudication — the first documented case of FRAND principles being applied in a Chinese administrative (rather than judicial) IP proceeding.
- SAMR Trade Secret Regulations: three weeks to June 1 effectiveness. This is the final full working week before China's new administrative trade secret enforcement framework takes effect. Companies that have not yet completed their trade secret identification and protection audits should treat this as a firm deadline.
- Fa Shi [2026] No. 7 first full week in force: early practitioner analysis highlights cause-of-action framing shift. Post-implementation commentary confirms that where facts support both IP and unfair competition claims, the IP framing is now materially more valuable — with punitive damages available for IP claims but not for standalone unfair competition claims under Article 2 of the AUCL.
- CNIPA invalidates DJI competitor's digital security patents in high-profile tech dispute. CNIPA invalidated two patents owned by Dutch digital security firm Irdeto B.V. at the request of DJI Innovation Technology, in a case documenting the expanding use of CNIPA administrative invalidation as a competitive tool in China's drone and consumer electronics sector.
6
Mainland China
1
Hong Kong SAR
1
Taiwan
—
Macau SAR
02
Legislation & Policy
Mainland China
⭐ Annual White Paper
May 7, 2026
CNIPA Releases 2025 IP Protection White Paper — 14th Five-Year Plan Closing Review: 6.318M Valid Patents, FRAND Adjudication, and a System in Transition
6.318M
Valid invention patents (total); 5.32M domestic
82.81
IP protection social satisfaction score (/100)
105,000
IP cases handled across all admin channels in 2025
Top 10
WIPO Global Innovation Index — China's first entry
CNIPA released the China's Intellectual Property Protection Status in 2025 white paper on May 7, providing a comprehensive official account of the final year of the 14th Five-Year Plan (2021–2025). The document spans judicial protection, administrative enforcement, legislative reform, international cooperation, and public services — making it the single most comprehensive annual reference document for assessing the state of China's IP system.
Patent landscape. Valid invention patents in China reached 6.318 million at year-end 2025 (up 11.1% year-on-year), with domestic valid inventions accounting for 5.32 million. China entered the WIPO Global Innovation Index top 10 for the first time. High-value invention patents stood at 16 per 10,000 people, surpassing the 14th Five-Year Plan target of 12. The Patent Examination Guidelines, amended November 10, 2025 (effective January 1, 2026), address AI-assisted inventions, streaming media, and plant varieties.
FRAND in the administrative channel. One of the white paper's most significant disclosures is a Guangdong administrative case involving HEVC video codec standard-essential patents managed by the Access Advance (AA) patent pool. The case was resolved through administrative mediation with the respondent reaching a licensing agreement, and the white paper explicitly states the case "addressed the application of FRAND principles in the administrative adjudication context." This is believed to be the first documented instance of FRAND principles being formally applied in a Chinese administrative IP proceeding — opening a new venue for SEP licensing disputes that has not previously been available to rights holders or implementers.
Legislative pipeline status. The white paper confirms the following legislative milestones completed in 2025: Anti-Unfair Competition Law amendments (effective October 15, 2025); Plant Variety Protection Regulations (effective June 1, 2025); Regulations on Handling Foreign-Related IP Disputes (effective May 1, 2025). In progress: Trademark Law (first NPC reading December 2025, public comment open), Trademark Law Implementation Regulations, Integrated Circuit Layout Design Regulations, Copyright Law Implementing Regulations, and National Defense Patent Regulations.
Patent landscape. Valid invention patents in China reached 6.318 million at year-end 2025 (up 11.1% year-on-year), with domestic valid inventions accounting for 5.32 million. China entered the WIPO Global Innovation Index top 10 for the first time. High-value invention patents stood at 16 per 10,000 people, surpassing the 14th Five-Year Plan target of 12. The Patent Examination Guidelines, amended November 10, 2025 (effective January 1, 2026), address AI-assisted inventions, streaming media, and plant varieties.
FRAND in the administrative channel. One of the white paper's most significant disclosures is a Guangdong administrative case involving HEVC video codec standard-essential patents managed by the Access Advance (AA) patent pool. The case was resolved through administrative mediation with the respondent reaching a licensing agreement, and the white paper explicitly states the case "addressed the application of FRAND principles in the administrative adjudication context." This is believed to be the first documented instance of FRAND principles being formally applied in a Chinese administrative IP proceeding — opening a new venue for SEP licensing disputes that has not previously been available to rights holders or implementers.
Legislative pipeline status. The white paper confirms the following legislative milestones completed in 2025: Anti-Unfair Competition Law amendments (effective October 15, 2025); Plant Variety Protection Regulations (effective June 1, 2025); Regulations on Handling Foreign-Related IP Disputes (effective May 1, 2025). In progress: Trademark Law (first NPC reading December 2025, public comment open), Trademark Law Implementation Regulations, Integrated Circuit Layout Design Regulations, Copyright Law Implementing Regulations, and National Defense Patent Regulations.
The white paper is the authoritative closing snapshot of the 14th Five-Year Plan IP cycle. Companies benchmarking their China IP strategies against national targets should use this document as their reference baseline. The FRAND administrative adjudication disclosure is particularly significant for SEP licensors and implementers: CNIPA's administrative IP protection centres may now offer a faster, less costly alternative to judicial FRAND determination for licensing disputes in China.
Mainland China
⚠ Effective June 1
Trade Secret
Effective June 1, 2026
SAMR Trade Secret Protection Regulations — Three Weeks to Effectiveness: Preparation Checklist for Rights Holders and Employers
The State Administration for Market Regulation's Provisions on the Protection of Trade Secrets take effect June 1, 2026. These regulations create an administrative enforcement track for trade secret protection that runs parallel to — and in many respects is faster than — the existing civil and criminal channels. Key provisions include SAMR's authority to issue administrative injunctions, impose fines of up to RMB 5 million for serious violations, and refer cases to public security authorities for criminal investigation. Administrative proceedings are expected to resolve significantly faster than civil litigation in many instances.
The regulations build on the 2019 AUCL amendments and define trade secrets broadly: technical information covered includes structures, raw materials, components, formulas, designs, plant varieties, processes, methods, algorithms, data, computer programs, and related documentation. Business information covered includes ideas, management and sales strategies, financial plans, samples, bidding materials, customer data, and supplier lists. Rights holders must demonstrate "reasonable confidentiality measures" for the trade secret claim to be valid — and the regulations set detailed standards for what qualifies.
The regulations build on the 2019 AUCL amendments and define trade secrets broadly: technical information covered includes structures, raw materials, components, formulas, designs, plant varieties, processes, methods, algorithms, data, computer programs, and related documentation. Business information covered includes ideas, management and sales strategies, financial plans, samples, bidding materials, customer data, and supplier lists. Rights holders must demonstrate "reasonable confidentiality measures" for the trade secret claim to be valid — and the regulations set detailed standards for what qualifies.
📋 Pre-June 1 Compliance Checklist
- Identify and formally catalogue all trade secrets across technical information, business data, and customer/supplier records — assign classification levels
- Implement or update internal confidentiality controls: written policies, employee training, physical and digital access restrictions, encryption for sensitive data
- Audit employment contracts for adequate confidentiality clauses and post-employment restrictions — verify these meet the "reasonable confidentiality measures" standard
- Establish an exit protocol for departing employees: signed reminders of ongoing confidentiality obligations, return/destruction of confidential materials, confirmation of handover
- Review agreements with business partners, contractors, and licensees for adequate trade secret protection provisions
- Designate an internal trade secret compliance officer or external counsel point of contact for SAMR proceedings
- Prepare an evidence preservation procedure for suspected misappropriation incidents — the regulations create a burden-shifting mechanism once a rights holder demonstrates access and similarity
Do not wait for a misappropriation incident to trigger action. SAMR's new administrative channel is most effective when a rights holder has a clean, documented trade secret identification system already in place. Companies that complete this preparation now will be positioned to initiate administrative proceedings within days of a suspected leak — rather than spending months establishing the threshold predicate for action.
03
Enforcement & Administration
Mainland China
Plant Varieties
⭐ Record Award
2025 (reported in White Paper)
RMB 53M+ Punitive Damages — NP01154 Corn Variety Infringement — Record for Plant Variety IP in China
NP01154 Corn Variety Case Sets National Record: RMB 53 Million Punitive Damages for Agricultural Biotech IP Infringement
The 2025 IP White Paper and the SPC's 2025 Annual Report both highlight the NP01154 corn new variety infringement case as a landmark in the enforcement of plant variety protection rights in China. The court awarded punitive damages exceeding RMB 53 million, the largest plant variety IP damages award in Chinese legal history — a figure that would have been unthinkable in this legal domain even five years ago.
The case is significant beyond its headline number. China's agricultural biotechnology sector — encompassing seed breeding, crop genomics, and precision agriculture — has historically been characterised by weak IP enforcement despite the existence of plant variety protection rights since 1997. The NP01154 outcome signals a fundamental shift: courts are now willing to apply the same punitive damages standards to plant variety infringement that they have been applying to technology patent and trade secret cases since 2021. The revised Plant Variety Protection Regulations (effective June 1, 2025), which introduced punitive damages into the plant variety regime, provided the direct legal basis for this award.
This development has practical implications well beyond China's domestic seed industry. International seed companies, agricultural biotech firms with China breeding programmes, and companies developing crop-related AI and genomic tools should reassess their China IP protection strategies in light of this enforcement capability.
The case is significant beyond its headline number. China's agricultural biotechnology sector — encompassing seed breeding, crop genomics, and precision agriculture — has historically been characterised by weak IP enforcement despite the existence of plant variety protection rights since 1997. The NP01154 outcome signals a fundamental shift: courts are now willing to apply the same punitive damages standards to plant variety infringement that they have been applying to technology patent and trade secret cases since 2021. The revised Plant Variety Protection Regulations (effective June 1, 2025), which introduced punitive damages into the plant variety regime, provided the direct legal basis for this award.
This development has practical implications well beyond China's domestic seed industry. International seed companies, agricultural biotech firms with China breeding programmes, and companies developing crop-related AI and genomic tools should reassess their China IP protection strategies in light of this enforcement capability.
Seed companies and agricultural biotech firms operating in China should conduct a plant variety IP audit, verify that their registered variety protection rights are current and enforceable, and document any observed infringement patterns in the field or in commercial seed channels. The availability of RMB 50 million-scale punitive damages makes active enforcement commercially viable for the first time in this sector.
Mainland China
Patent Invalidation
March 2026 (reported this week)
DJI Succeeds in CNIPA Patent Invalidation Against Dutch Digital Security Firm Irdeto — Drone Sector IP Competition Intensifies
In March 2026, CNIPA invalidated two patents owned by Irdeto B.V., a Dutch digital security and content protection company, at the request of DJI Innovation Technology, the world's leading consumer drone manufacturer. The two patents — one covering "detecting modifications to content items" and another covering "challenge-response methods" — were both declared fully invalid on grounds of lack of novelty and inventive step following CNIPA's substantive invalidation examination.
This case illustrates several important trends in China's IP landscape. First, it demonstrates that CNIPA's patent invalidation proceedings are being actively used by major Chinese technology companies as a strategic tool to clear IP obstacles from international competitors — not merely as a defensive response to infringement claims. Second, it reflects the rising sophistication of DJI's IP operations as the company manages an increasingly complex international IP environment, where its products and technologies face both enforcement actions and competitive challenges across multiple jurisdictions simultaneously. Third, it serves as a reminder to foreign companies with China-facing patent portfolios that patent validity cannot be assumed: the quality of the prior art search and claim drafting at the time of filing directly determines resilience to CNIPA challenge.
This case illustrates several important trends in China's IP landscape. First, it demonstrates that CNIPA's patent invalidation proceedings are being actively used by major Chinese technology companies as a strategic tool to clear IP obstacles from international competitors — not merely as a defensive response to infringement claims. Second, it reflects the rising sophistication of DJI's IP operations as the company manages an increasingly complex international IP environment, where its products and technologies face both enforcement actions and competitive challenges across multiple jurisdictions simultaneously. Third, it serves as a reminder to foreign companies with China-facing patent portfolios that patent validity cannot be assumed: the quality of the prior art search and claim drafting at the time of filing directly determines resilience to CNIPA challenge.
Foreign IP holders whose patents relate to technologies used or potentially challenged by major Chinese technology companies should conduct regular invalidity risk assessments on their key China patents. The CNIPA invalidation process is fast, relatively low-cost, and has a high success rate against claims that were not specifically drafted with Chinese prior art in mind. Pre-emptive claim strengthening during prosecution — and monitoring competitor petitions — is more cost-effective than defending against a successful invalidation.
04
Courts & Key Decisions
Mainland China
✓ In Force
SPC · Punitive Damages
Post-May 1 Analysis
Fa Shi [2026] No. 7 First-Week Implementation Insights: IP Framing Now Strategically Superior to Unfair Competition Claims
Following the May 1 entry into force of the revised SPC Punitive Damages Interpretation, the first week of practitioner commentary has crystalised several implementation insights that were not fully apparent from the text alone.
The cause-of-action framing shift. The most operationally significant insight from early analysis (including a detailed treatment by counsel at Gen Law Firm) is the value of Article 5 of the new interpretation: where the underlying facts support both an IP infringement claim (patent, trademark, copyright, or trade secret) and a parallel unfair competition theory, the IP framing is now materially more valuable. Punitive damages of up to five times the base are available under the IP framing; they are not available for standalone unfair competition claims under Article 2 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law. This makes IP characterisation a threshold strategic decision at the pleading stage, not merely a doctrinal choice — particularly relevant in look-alike product cases, trade dress disputes, and cases where a competitor has copied elements that arguably fall under both regimes.
Statutory damages and punitive multipliers. The new interpretation confirms that statutory damages may not serve as the base figure against which a punitive multiplier is applied. This resolves a contested question from the 2021 text and means that rights holders seeking punitive damages must establish an actual loss or infringer-profit base figure — which in turn requires more robust financial evidence at the pleading stage. Cases where rights holders intended to rely on statutory damages as a convenient shortcut will need to be re-evaluated.
Patent counterfeiting now within the presumption of willfulness. The revised text expressly expands the "piracy and counterfeiting" category to include patent counterfeiting alongside copyright piracy and trademark counterfeiting. This creates a presumption of willfulness in patent counterfeiting cases — presumption that is rebuttable but shifts the burden of proof to the defendant.
The cause-of-action framing shift. The most operationally significant insight from early analysis (including a detailed treatment by counsel at Gen Law Firm) is the value of Article 5 of the new interpretation: where the underlying facts support both an IP infringement claim (patent, trademark, copyright, or trade secret) and a parallel unfair competition theory, the IP framing is now materially more valuable. Punitive damages of up to five times the base are available under the IP framing; they are not available for standalone unfair competition claims under Article 2 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law. This makes IP characterisation a threshold strategic decision at the pleading stage, not merely a doctrinal choice — particularly relevant in look-alike product cases, trade dress disputes, and cases where a competitor has copied elements that arguably fall under both regimes.
Statutory damages and punitive multipliers. The new interpretation confirms that statutory damages may not serve as the base figure against which a punitive multiplier is applied. This resolves a contested question from the 2021 text and means that rights holders seeking punitive damages must establish an actual loss or infringer-profit base figure — which in turn requires more robust financial evidence at the pleading stage. Cases where rights holders intended to rely on statutory damages as a convenient shortcut will need to be re-evaluated.
Patent counterfeiting now within the presumption of willfulness. The revised text expressly expands the "piracy and counterfeiting" category to include patent counterfeiting alongside copyright piracy and trademark counterfeiting. This creates a presumption of willfulness in patent counterfeiting cases — presumption that is rebuttable but shifts the burden of proof to the defendant.
Litigation teams handling pending Chinese IP cases should immediately audit their claims against these three post-implementation insights: (1) can the cause of action be characterised as an IP claim (rather than pure unfair competition) to preserve punitive damages eligibility? (2) Is a financial base figure established or can it be established quickly? (3) Does the defendant's conduct qualify as patent counterfeiting, triggering the new willfulness presumption? These are decisions that must be made before oral argument concludes.
Mainland China
SPC Cases
⭐ Notable Rulings
May 2026 (reporting period)
SPC Rulings: Phrasal Trademarks Can Acquire Distinctiveness Through Industry Use; Chip Company Patent Infringement Award Upheld
Two SPC decisions reported this week illustrate the range and sophistication of IP adjudication at China's highest court level.
Phrasal trademark distinctiveness. In a trademark administrative appeal, the SPC provided guidance on the distinctiveness of phrasal trademarks — terms consisting of common words arranged in combinations. The court held that even a mark consisting of ordinary words can acquire distinctiveness through demonstrated industry use and consumer recognition, and that unconventional brand names can be permitted in China where market evidence of distinctiveness is properly established. For foreign companies attempting to register non-traditional or descriptive marks in China, the ruling underlines that: (1) CNIPA decisions on distinctiveness can be successfully appealed; (2) industry precedent and existing brand exposure are legitimate and effective arguments; and (3) early and systematic consumer survey evidence is essential for any mark where distinctiveness is likely to be contested.
Chip patent infringement damages. In a patent infringement dispute between two semiconductor companies, the SPC upheld damages awarded against a power management chip manufacturer for infringing a chip design patent, addressing the evidentiary standard for establishing that the defendant's products fell within the scope of the claimed patent. The ruling reinforces the message — consistent with the new punitive damages framework — that IP enforcement in China's semiconductor sector is operating at a commercially serious level, and that both design and invention patent rights over chip technologies are actively enforceable.
Phrasal trademark distinctiveness. In a trademark administrative appeal, the SPC provided guidance on the distinctiveness of phrasal trademarks — terms consisting of common words arranged in combinations. The court held that even a mark consisting of ordinary words can acquire distinctiveness through demonstrated industry use and consumer recognition, and that unconventional brand names can be permitted in China where market evidence of distinctiveness is properly established. For foreign companies attempting to register non-traditional or descriptive marks in China, the ruling underlines that: (1) CNIPA decisions on distinctiveness can be successfully appealed; (2) industry precedent and existing brand exposure are legitimate and effective arguments; and (3) early and systematic consumer survey evidence is essential for any mark where distinctiveness is likely to be contested.
Chip patent infringement damages. In a patent infringement dispute between two semiconductor companies, the SPC upheld damages awarded against a power management chip manufacturer for infringing a chip design patent, addressing the evidentiary standard for establishing that the defendant's products fell within the scope of the claimed patent. The ruling reinforces the message — consistent with the new punitive damages framework — that IP enforcement in China's semiconductor sector is operating at a commercially serious level, and that both design and invention patent rights over chip technologies are actively enforceable.
Foreign brand owners who have had trademark applications refused by CNIPA on distinctiveness grounds should review whether their refusals are based on inherent distinctiveness assessments that could be challenged with market evidence. The SPC's willingness to overturn CNIPA decisions in this area creates meaningful appeal opportunities for marks that have established market presence. For semiconductor companies, the chip patent enforcement ruling is a reminder to maintain and update Chinese patent filings that reflect current product designs.
05
Industry, Market & Emerging Issues
Hong Kong SAR
Patent Traps · Practical Guide
May 2026
Hong Kong Patent Practitioners Flag Four Common Misconceptions — "Short-Term Patents" and Re-Registration Pitfalls Highlighted
IP practitioners have been highlighting four common misconceptions about Hong Kong's patent system that continue to lead foreign rights holders into costly errors, particularly as more companies explore Hong Kong as part of a Greater China IP strategy following the city's recent push as an IP hub.
Misconception 1: Hong Kong patents are just re-registrations of Mainland or UK patents. While Hong Kong's "short-term patents" and "standard patents" are both derived from designated foreign applications (Chinese, UK, or European designating the UK), they are not automatic — active filing steps are required within specific deadlines, and failure to file in time cannot be remedied. Misconception 2: A short-term patent offers weak protection. Short-term patents (maximum 8-year term) have the same infringement remedies as standard patents and can be commercially valuable, especially in fast-moving technology sectors where an 8-year protection window covers the economically active product lifecycle. Misconception 3: Prosecution in the designated office has no effect on the Hong Kong right. Post-grant amendments, invalidation proceedings, or abandonment of the designated application can directly affect the corresponding Hong Kong right — requiring careful monitoring. Misconception 4: Hong Kong's common law courts apply the same IP standards as Mainland China. Hong Kong courts apply a distinct legal framework, with significant differences in inventive step assessment, claim construction, and the admissibility of prosecution history estoppel.
Misconception 1: Hong Kong patents are just re-registrations of Mainland or UK patents. While Hong Kong's "short-term patents" and "standard patents" are both derived from designated foreign applications (Chinese, UK, or European designating the UK), they are not automatic — active filing steps are required within specific deadlines, and failure to file in time cannot be remedied. Misconception 2: A short-term patent offers weak protection. Short-term patents (maximum 8-year term) have the same infringement remedies as standard patents and can be commercially valuable, especially in fast-moving technology sectors where an 8-year protection window covers the economically active product lifecycle. Misconception 3: Prosecution in the designated office has no effect on the Hong Kong right. Post-grant amendments, invalidation proceedings, or abandonment of the designated application can directly affect the corresponding Hong Kong right — requiring careful monitoring. Misconception 4: Hong Kong's common law courts apply the same IP standards as Mainland China. Hong Kong courts apply a distinct legal framework, with significant differences in inventive step assessment, claim construction, and the admissibility of prosecution history estoppel.
Any company relying on UK, European (UK-designating), or Chinese patents as the basis for Hong Kong patent protection should verify that the Hong Kong filing deadlines have been met, that the corresponding Hong Kong rights have been duly prosecuted and granted, and that any post-grant changes to the designated patent are being tracked for their Hong Kong implications.
Taiwan
Pharmaceutical · Data Protection
May 2026 (forthcoming)
Taiwan and Mainland China Diverge on Pharmaceutical Data Protection — NMPA Drug Trial Data Measures to Take Effect May 15; TIPO Framework Contrasted
A noteworthy regulatory divergence is emerging between Taiwan and Mainland China on pharmaceutical data protection — the IP-adjacent regime that protects clinical trial data submitted to drug regulators from generic drug applicants for a defined exclusivity period. China's National Medical Products Administration (NMPA) is expected to announce its finalised Measures for the Implementation of Drug Trial Data Protection with an effective date of May 15, 2026, implementing the data protection provisions of the 2019 Drug Administration Law amendments. Taiwan's TIPO and pharmaceutical regulation system operate a distinct pharmaceutical patent linkage framework under a different legal architecture, with data exclusivity periods and linkage procedures that differ materially from China's approach. For multinational pharmaceutical companies managing dual Mainland–Taiwan patent and regulatory strategies, these diverging frameworks require parallel management and cannot be assumed to be interoperable.
—
Macau SAR
MacauMay 4–10, 2026
No significant IP policy, legislative, or enforcement announcements were issued by Macao's Economic and Technological Development Bureau (DSEDT) during this reporting period. IP registration and enforcement operations continue normally. For Macau-specific IP enquiries, please contact foridom@foridom.com.
📅 Upcoming Dates & Key Deadlines
May 15
NMPA Drug Trial Data Protection Measures expected to take effect — pharmaceutical companies with China registration pipelines should confirm compliance position. China
Jun 1
SAMR Trade Secret Protection Regulations take effect. Three weeks away — complete internal audit and protection documentation now. Preparation checklist in Section 02 above. ⚠ Urgent
H2 2026
Trademark Law (Amendment) — second NPC Standing Committee reading. New "misleading use" provisions and bad-faith application rules remain under close watch. China
Ongoing
CNIPA patent agency rectification: "Year of Rectification and Standardisation" — impacts filing agent relationships; monitor for examination delays on agency-filed applications. China
Ongoing
Fa Shi [2026] No. 7 in force — all new IP proceedings must include punitive damages claims at first instance if pursuing enhanced damages. China
Publication
Greater China IP Watch, Issue No. 05
Reporting period: May 4–10, 2026
Published: Monday, May 11, 2026
Reporting period: May 4–10, 2026
Published: Monday, May 11, 2026
Prepared & Proofread by
Foridom IP Law Firm (百一知识产权)
Proofread by: Wiky Wang, Attorney at Law
Proofread by: Wiky Wang, Attorney at Law
Contact & Subscriptions
foridom@foridom.com
For subscription, feedback, or IP enquiries
For subscription, feedback, or IP enquiries
Coverage & Sources
Mainland China · Hong Kong SAR · Taiwan · Macau SAR
Primary: CNIPA, SPC, SAMR, TIPO, IPD, DSEDT
Media: chinaiplawupdate.com, NLR, IAM, Managing IP
Primary: CNIPA, SPC, SAMR, TIPO, IPD, DSEDT
Media: chinaiplawupdate.com, NLR, IAM, Managing IP