Insights

The EPO updated Online Filing 2.0 on 4 November: when adding a patent literature document to the notice of opposition, Form EP2300, the field "Patent office" is now "Country code" and "Publication type" is now "Kind code". The same release improves import functionality and fixes minor bugs.

MyEPO 1.31.0, released on 2 November, brings two opposition-related changes:

Korea's Ministry of Intellectual Property (MOIP) issued a press release on 2 November with an attached guide to requesting priority examination, version of 1 November 2026, a 46-page PDF for patent and utility model applicants. It brings together who may apply and on what grounds, supporting documents, completed examples of the explanatory statement and FAQs, and also covers super-accelerated examination. The eligibility changes in the revised notice in force since 1 November are summarised in Chapter I of the guide and are not repeated here.

The EPO's Legal Board of Appeal decided on 3 November in J 0002/26, published on 6 November, that renewal fees already due for the parent application when a divisional is filed must be paid again for the divisional, even if the parent's fees were paid long ago. The applicant's request for a refund of the third- to eleventh-year renewal fees it had paid for the divisional was refused, as was its request to reimburse the appeal fee.

Divisional EP 22190072.3 was filed on 11 August 2022 from parent EP 12793105.3.

From 24 October 2026, designating Indonesia through the Madrid System costs CHF 125 per class, up from CHF 91. This time it is Indonesia's own revision of its individual fee, not one of the exchange-rate recalculations WIPO made for many members in April. At the same time, a national filing with Indonesia's Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DJKI) has cost IDR 2,800,000 per class for general applicants since 1 August 2026. With the two official fees now in a similar range, the choice between Madrid and a national filing turns less on fees and more on agents, timing and the risks of each route. This guide sets out the comparison. It gives general rules; a specific case needs professional advice.

A refusal from CNIPA that cites Article 4 of China's Trademark Law is different from the usual "similar to an earlier mark" refusal. It says the examiner considers your application a bad-faith filing made without intent to use. The objection is about the applicant's filing behaviour as a whole, not about one conflicting mark, so the response has to show that you genuinely intend to use the mark and that your filings match your business. Foreign brand owners sometimes run into it after filing broad defensive programmes across many classes. This guide explains how Article 4 is assessed, how to respond to a refusal and how to file so it does not happen. Article numbers follow the current law (2019 amendment). In the revised Trademark Law in force from 1 January 2027 the rule moves to Article 19(1), which refuses applications not intended for use that clearly exceed normal business needs. It sets out general rules; a specific case needs professional advice.

The Intellectual Property Court of China's Supreme People's Court published a case summary on 5 November in case (2023) Zui Gao Fa Zhi Min Zhong No. 539. Its core point: a defendant who was entitled to access a technical secret is not thereby entitled to the way it obtained the secret or to what it did with it afterwards. The test is whether its intent, its means of obtaining the secret and its later conduct caused, or could cause, the owner to lose effective control of the secret.