Insights

In its opening statement to the 68th WIPO Assemblies on 8 July 2026, the United States placed the modernisation of global filing systems high on the agenda. It urged WIPO members to remove outdated requirements in the Madrid System that limit its usefulness for trademark owners, and argued that resources generated through the PCT should be reinvested in the system, including a unified dashboard and portal for managing global intellectual property portfolios with a particular focus on small and medium-sized enterprises. These were policy proposals from one member state, not adopted WIPO rules or confirmed budget decisions.

The two ideas address a familiar operational problem: international applicants still deal with repeated data entry, fragmented online services and no single view across different rights. Streamlining Madrid formalities could reduce avoidable procedural friction. A global portfolio portal could be more significant, but only if it connects reliable data, participating offices and access controls rather than adding another interface. For SMEs, the practical test will be whether the project cuts portfolio-management time, deadline risk and external service costs.

Mexico’s new Regulations under the Federal Law for the Protection of Industrial Property will take effect on 22 July 2026. Published on 28 April, the 202-article instrument replaces the previous regulatory framework and clarifies procedural points left open by the 2020 law, including statutory periods, submission and assessment of evidence, online infringement proceedings, patent and provisional filing practice, non-traditional marks and acquired distinctiveness.

The main gain is greater predictability, not lighter compliance. Companies with pending applications, licences or enforcement matters in Mexico should review deadline calculations, evidentiary formats, powers of attorney and internal approval steps before the effective date. Clearer rules reduce interpretive gaps, but the transition may expose weak filing and case-management practices more quickly.

During the 68th Series of Meetings of the WIPO Assemblies, the Canadian Intellectual Property Office (CIPO) announced a five-year renewal of its Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) arrangement with the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA). The renewal preserves a work-sharing route under which eligible applicants may rely on favourable examination results from one office to request accelerated processing before the other. CIPO also signed new cooperation work plans with the European Union Intellectual Property Office, the Norwegian Industrial Property Office and France’s National Institute of Industrial Property, covering institutional exchanges, capacity building and intellectual property services.

The distinction between these instruments matters. The CNIPA renewal has a direct procedural effect for patent applicants, while the new European work plans are broader office-to-office frameworks rather than additional PPH channels. For businesses managing Canadian and Chinese patent portfolios, the five-year term offers greater planning stability, but PPH does not guarantee grant: claim correspondence, timing and document preparation remain central. The value of the other agreements will depend on whether later projects produce more practical cooperation in examination, data exchange and user-facing services.

China’s trademark authority has announced that, from 1 July 2026, trademark matters handled through agencies should in principle be filed electronically through the CNIPA online service system rather than on paper. The change covers filing, examination and official communications, while matters involving electronic evidence must follow the relevant submission guidance.

For agencies, this is more than a change of delivery channel. Account permissions, client authorisations, evidence formats, version control and deadline records will need tighter internal management. A fuller digital trail should improve traceability and may help regulators identify abnormal filing patterns, but electronic filing does not replace substantive review. Applicants should still check for exceptions and retain complete filing receipts and final document sets.

On 2 July 2026, the China National Intellectual Property Administration published detailed analyses of the ten representative patent reexamination and invalidation cases for 2025, expanding on the case summaries released in April. In the AI-related case concerning the generation of dynamic images from audio, the patent was upheld and the panel treated model design, model training and model application as distinct stages when applying the inventive-step test. The analysis indicates that examiners should look at the application scenario, data or object being processed, the training method and the resulting technical effect, rather than dismissing a new use of an algorithm as a routine substitution.

The pharmaceutical case involving Pfizer’s crizotinib crystal form also sharpened the standard for post-filed experimental data. Such evidence is not automatically excluded, but the claimed technical effect must be derivable from the original disclosure, the testing method must be sound, the results reliable, and the evidence open to challenge by the other party. The practical message is straightforward: in complex technologies, patent strength increasingly depends on what the original filing actually explains about technical effects, training or testing conditions, and the basis for comparison. A traceable evidentiary record at filing is far more dependable than a broad explanation added later.

CNIPA’s 2026 administrative protection work plan calls for closer coordination with commerce authorities and stricter management of outbound intellectual property transfers connected to technology exports. The measure does not create a wholly new approval track, but it points to more disciplined review of cross-border deals involving restricted technologies, core patents, software rights and other strategic know-how.

For companies in biopharmaceuticals and advanced manufacturing, the practical risk extends beyond an outright patent sale. Exclusive licences, bundled technology packages and control changes may also attract scrutiny. Businesses should classify the technology, verify ownership and licensing scope, and build a clear record of the deal’s purpose and likely impact before signing. Tighter review is not the same as a blanket ban, but transactions that leave compliance until after execution may face greater delay and closing uncertainty.