Insights

The new bilateral Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) pilot between the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) and the European Patent Office (EPO) took effect on 1 August 2026. In the first week of implementation, practitioners have begun using the framework for accelerated examination based on favorable PCT and national work products. Applicants can rely on a positive examination outcome from either CNIPA or the EPO to seek faster processing of a corresponding application before the other office, reducing some duplication in search and examination.

For portfolios spanning China and Europe, the practical gain is not simply speed. The arrangement gives applicants another way to sequence prosecution around whichever office produces a useful result first. At the EPO, a PPH request does not attract an additional official fee beyond the ordinary prosecution costs, which makes the route easier to consider where claim scope and timing already align. Acceleration does not lower substantive patentability standards, however, so applicants should coordinate corresponding claims and examination records early; otherwise, differences between the two cases may limit the efficiency that PPH is intended to deliver.

In early August 2026, South Korea’s former Korean Intellectual Property Office (KIPO), now elevated to the ministry-level Ministry of Intellectual Property (MOIP), moved to deepen its technical examination strategy for artificial intelligence and other future-growth technologies. The plan places AI, spatial computing and related strategic fields more prominently within examination capacity building, signalling an effort to make specialist patent examination a more active part of Korea’s innovation policy and international IP role.

MOIP has also updated the fee charged in its capacity as a PCT International Searching Authority (ISA). Following an exchange-rate adjustment, the international search fee is now USD 783. For applicants selecting the Korean ISA, the immediate task is to update filing budgets and payment workflows, but the broader development is institutional: Korea is strengthening domestic examination expertise while refining its international search function. Applicants working in AI and spatial computing should watch closely for more concrete examination guidance as the ministry’s expanded mandate begins to shape practice.

Practice signals in early August 2026 point to closer scrutiny in Australia and New Zealand of defensive trademark stockpiling and cross-border bad-faith filings. In opposition, non-use cancellation and related examination contexts, the commercial basis for broad specifications is becoming a more sensitive issue, particularly in Nice Classes 9, 35 and 41, where digital-economy filings can easily extend well beyond a business's near-term activities.

For overseas applicants, expansive coverage unsupported by contemporaneous evidence of local market plans, product or service preparation, distribution arrangements or other concrete steps may create greater vulnerability in examination and later disputes. The development is better treated as a tightening practice trend than as a single new rule. Applicants targeting Australia and New Zealand should align specifications more closely with credible commercial plans and preserve records that can demonstrate a genuine intention to use the mark if challenged.

Editor’s note (24 September 2026): as of publication we have not located an official announcement of the measures described below; this article is based on industry briefings and is subject to official confirmation.

On 5 August 2026, the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore (IPOS) and the Intellectual Property Corporation of Malaysia (MyIPO) launched a bilateral Collaborative Search and Examination (CS&E) pilot for patent applications in artificial intelligence and green technology. An applicant may file a CS&E request with either office, after which examiners from both sides share search results and examination views on corresponding applications. The pilot targets substantive examination within six months in both jurisdictions and initially offers 500 places, turning the two offices’ broader cooperation framework into a concrete filing option for technology owners.

For companies seeking protection in both Singapore and Malaysia, the main gain is not simply a shorter queue. Earlier alignment of search work and examination reasoning can expose differences over prior art, claim scope and patentability before separate prosecution tracks drift too far apart. It should not, however, be read as a guarantee of identical outcomes: each office continues to apply its own law and examination standards. With a capped first phase, applicants with near-term AI or green-tech filings should consider the pilot at the portfolio-planning stage and keep claim drafting across the two jurisdictions closely coordinated.

On 6 August 2026, Indonesia’s Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP), following the 1 August fee increases and electronic-system update, issued supplementary internal reference criteria for trademark deletion cases before the Commercial Court. The guidance focuses on digital-only evidence in three-year non-use disputes. Foreign-language e-commerce screenshots, promotional material not localised for the Indonesian market, or records lacking genuine shipment, customs or tax documentation tied to Indonesian addresses may carry little or no weight as proof of local commercial use.

For international brand owners, the practical issue is no longer simply whether an online presence can be shown, but whether the evidence forms a verifiable chain of Indonesian market activity. An Indonesian-language social-media page by itself is unlikely to be a reliable shield against a non-use challenge if it is disconnected from orders, deliveries, imports or other contemporaneous transaction records. Rights holders should therefore preserve evidence by market and date, and make sure website targeting, customer records, invoices, logistics and customs documents reinforce one another; digital trademark use is increasingly being tested against real local commerce rather than online visibility alone.

Editor’s note (24 September 2026): as of publication we have not located an official announcement of the measures described below; this article is based on industry briefings and is subject to official confirmation.

On 5 August 2026, IP Vietnam introduced procedural changes for international trademark registrations designating Vietnam under the Madrid System. For provisional refusals issued through WIPO, the system will now provide one automatic three-month extension without a separate form or official extension fee. The measure addresses a persistent practical problem: delayed transmission of refusal notices could leave applicants with a very compressed period in which to appoint local counsel and prepare a response.

IP Vietnam has also opened a dedicated electronic channel allowing local representatives to submit responses to Madrid provisional refusals directly into the examination system, bypassing part of the traditional paper-based routing. The new route is expected to shorten review completion by roughly two to three months. The extra time should reduce deadline pressure, but applicants should not treat it as a reason to wait: early coordination with Vietnamese counsel remains important, particularly where evidence, specification amendments or substantive arguments may be required.