Insights

MyIPO opened a public consultation on 3 July 2026 on proposed amendments to Malaysia’s Copyright Act 1987, with comments due by 14 August. The package spans AI and text-and-data mining, digital enforcement and copyright commercialisation. Among the proposals are rules for the use of protected works in AI training; stronger safeguards for technological protection measures (TPMs) and rights management information (RMI); a tighter online service-provider safe harbour with a notice-and-takedown window that may be as short as 12 hours; dynamic injunctions capable of reaching mirror, clone and successor sites; and criminal powers to seize and forfeit domain names linked to infringement. Orphan works, an artist’s resale right, collective-management transparency and reform of the Copyright Tribunal are also under review.

This is not a narrow technical update. If enacted in its current direction, it could materially alter platform operations, licensing budgets and the compliance burden for AI developers. A 12-hour takedown standard would demand near-continuous complaint triage, evidence preservation and escalation procedures, while businesses training models should begin mapping data provenance, legal bases and licensing exposure now. Dynamic injunctions and domain seizures may make anti-piracy action faster, but their scope, proportionality and procedural safeguards will need careful drafting. Companies affected by the proposals have a limited window to submit practical evidence before 14 August rather than waiting for the bill to crystallise.

The Intellectual Property Office of Singapore introduced a phased fee revision, with most changes taking effect on 1 September 2025 and the remaining measures applying from 1 April 2026. For patents, excess-claim fees under Forms PF11 and PF12 now begin above 15 claims rather than 20, while the charge has increased from S$40 to S$80 per excess claim. From April 2026, certain excess-claim payments linked to relevant examination requests filed on or after 1 September 2025 are also brought forward to the PF13A response stage. Extension requests across IP procedures are no longer free for the first filing: CM5 fees are set at S$25 for the first request, S$50 for the second and S$75 from the third request onward.

The practical issue is not only a higher official-fee bill, but an earlier one. Applicants that previously postponed claim consolidation until close to grant may now face the cost during examination, when amendments and response strategy are still developing. Singapore filing budgets should therefore be reviewed alongside drafting choices: control claim volume before filing, price the addition of claims during prosecution, and treat extensions as a managed procedural expense rather than a near-costless buffer.

According to a USPTO announcement and Ghanaian reporting published on 14 July, the Ghana Industrial Property Office (GHIPO), under the Office of the Registrar of Companies, and the United States Patent and Trademark Office signed a statement of intent in Geneva on 9 July 2026 concerning an Accelerated Patent Grant (APG) arrangement. Ghana is the first African country to move forward with this type of cooperation with the USPTO. Under the proposed mechanism, an applicant holding a granted US patent and a corresponding Ghanaian application may request accelerated grant in Ghana, while GHIPO may draw on the USPTO’s search and patentability work but must still assess compliance with Ghanaian law.

The practical appeal is clear: less duplicated examination and a more predictable route to grant. It is not, however, an automatic extension of US patent rights into Ghana. The USPTO has indicated that GHIPO will publish implementation guidance and procedural details separately. Applicants should therefore review claim correspondence, local-law limitations and documentary requirements before changing filing or prosecution strategy. For technology companies targeting West Africa, the arrangement could reduce waiting time and prosecution cost, but its real value will depend on the eligibility rules and the way GHIPO applies the forthcoming guidance.

According to a 14 July 2026 report by Spoor & Fisher, the Kenya IP Authority Bill, 2026 has been introduced in the National Assembly. It proposes merging the Kenya Industrial Property Institute (KIPI), the Kenya Copyright Board (KECOBO) and the Anti-Counterfeit Authority (ACA) into a single Kenya Intellectual Property Authority (KIPA), bringing patents, trademarks, industrial designs, copyright and anti-counterfeiting functions under one institutional framework. The bill also addresses mandatory IP recordation for imports, definitions for AI-assisted and AI-generated inventions, and a unified tribunal for IP disputes and appeals.

If enacted, the reform would amount to more than an administrative reorganisation. A single authority could reduce procedural overlap and improve coordination, but the practical effect will depend on the final parliamentary text and transitional rules for existing applications, registrations, enforcement matters and import records. Rights holders, importers and AI-focused businesses operating in Kenya should follow the legislative process closely and avoid treating the proposed measures as effective law before enactment and implementation.

According to an Adams & Adams update published on 16 July 2026, Kenya’s High Court has set aside a directive issued by the Ministry of Investments, Trade and Industry on 30 September 2025. The directive required the registration, renewal and cancellation of trademarks, patents, utility models and industrial designs to receive prior approval from the KIPI Board. In Law Society of Kenya v. Principal Secretary, the Court found that the Principal Secretary had exceeded the limits of the office by reallocating powers already assigned by statute, restoring the authority of the Registrar of Trade Marks and KIPI management.

The ruling should shorten an approval chain that had introduced delay and uncertainty into routine IP administration. It also draws a useful line between board oversight and statutory decision-making. Applicants and rights holders should nevertheless watch how KIPI handles matters already affected by the directive, particularly any backlog, reconsideration requests or transitional measures.

Ethiopia’s Intellectual Property Authority (EIPA) is moving forward with revisions to the country’s trademark registration and protection proclamation, according to an update published by Adams & Adams on 16 July 2026. Addis Ababa University prepared the draft amendments, which were discussed with stakeholders in June 2026. Adams & Adams submitted general comments addressing, among other issues, the alignment between implementing regulations and the primary legislation, application formalities and the clarity of procedural requirements.

The reform remains under consultation, but the practical details will determine whether the revised framework improves predictability for applicants. Inconsistent requirements across the main law, implementing rules and filing practice could lead to additional formalities, uneven examination timelines or uncertainty over supporting documents. Businesses planning trademark filings in Ethiopia should therefore monitor the final text closely and preserve flexibility in filing documents, budgets and local procedural arrangements.