Insights

According to an update published by Adams & Adams on 16 July 2026, Sudan’s Intellectual Property Administrative Registrar has resumed strict application of section 19(3) of the Trade Marks Act 1969. A registration may now be renewed only within the statutory six-month grace period following expiry, subject to the applicable late fee. Renewal requests filed after that period will no longer be accepted. The more flexible practice adopted during conflict-related operational disruption has therefore come to an end.

The change removes much of the room for retrospective correction. Owners of Sudanese registrations should review expiry dates, agent records and payment workflows now, particularly where internal approvals take time. Reliance on the temporary post-deadline practice is no longer prudent; missing the grace period may require a fresh application and could create a gap in protection, expose the mark to intervening rights and increase overall cost.

Mexico’s new Regulation implementing the Federal Law for the Protection of Industrial Property, published in the Official Gazette on 28 April 2026, will take effect on 22 July—the 60th working day after publication—and replace the framework dating from 1994. According to the Mexican Institute of Industrial Property (IMPI), the regulation gives more detailed operational guidance on procedures, deadlines and filing requirements under the current industrial property law.

With the effective date close, applicants and rights holders should review pending matters now, particularly deadline calculations, documentary formalities, evidence preparation and instructions to local counsel. The transition may affect the handling of patent, trademark and design filings as well as contentious proceedings; businesses with active Mexican portfolios should confirm the applicable rules case by case rather than assume that existing templates and timelines will remain unchanged.

Recent reports in Canadian and Chinese patent-practice circles have claimed that the Canadian Intellectual Property Office (CIPO) formally launched a no-fee fast-track route for critical technologies and issued final Track 1 rules in early July. CIPO’s current official materials do not support that claim. Both initiatives are still described as proposals: Track 1 would be a paid ultra-accelerated examination service, while the critical-technology route would offer acceleration without an additional official fee for eligible technologies identified by government policy.

Practitioners should not treat the close of consultation as an effective date. Track 1 still requires fee-related regulatory amendments and approval, and CIPO has indicated that both initiatives depend on further process and IT changes, with implementation expected no earlier than 2027. Until a formal notice and operative procedures are published, applicants should continue to rely on existing acceleration routes, including the PPH, green-technology requests and special-order examination where available.

The USPTO’s final rule requiring foreign-domiciled patent applicants and patent owners to act through a registered patent practitioner takes effect on 20 July 2026. Where at least one applicant or owner is domiciled outside the United States or its territories, most patent filings and prosecution steps must be handled by a patent attorney, patent agent, or other practitioner recognised by the USPTO and in good standing. The rule applies to new applications and to many papers received on or after the effective date, including amendments, replies, information disclosure statements, application data sheets and petitions, even where the underlying case was filed earlier.

The change does not remove the basic filing-date safeguards for a new application, but papers lacking the required practitioner signature may be disregarded or trigger a notice to correct defects. An unsigned or improperly signed application data sheet may be treated only as a transmittal letter, leaving inventor details and priority or benefit claims ineffective until corrected. Foreign applicants currently managing U.S. matters without counsel should therefore focus on the handover itself: appointment documents, authority to act, signature responsibility and pending deadlines must all line up before 20 July. The compliance risk lies less in finding a name for the file than in avoiding a procedural gap during the transition.

EUIPO’s design reform now allows new forms of representation in direct EU design filings: OBJ and STL files may be used for dynamic three-dimensional representations, while MP4 may be used for animated representations, subject to the technical limits set by the Office. As of 18 July 2026, however, WIPO’s public Hague System notices, news pages and current administrative framework do not appear to contain a matching confirmation that eHague can already receive those formats for international applications designating the European Union.

Applicants should therefore keep the EUIPO direct route separate from the Hague route when planning dynamic GUI or 3D model filings. The same caution applies to multiple applications. EUIPO has removed the same-Locarno-class requirement for direct EU filings, but Hague Rule 7(7), in force from 1 July 2026, still requires the products in one international application to belong to the same class. Until WIPO publishes a clear operational notice or the eHague interface itself confirms broader support, filing teams should verify the upload workflow in advance and keep compliant static views ready as a fallback.

On 14 July 2026, the Intellectual Property Corporation of Malaysia (MyIPO) introduced the Digital & Green Gateway (DGG), an accelerated patent examination route aimed at inventions involving artificial intelligence models, big-data processing algorithms and clean-energy technologies. Under the announced framework, applications that satisfy the basic formal requirements may request DGG treatment without an additional acceleration fee, with MyIPO targeting a first office action within four months. Eligible technology start-ups may also receive a reduction of up to 50% in the substantive examination fee.

The combination of faster examination and fee support could be useful for businesses working toward fundraising, licensing or market-entry milestones. It should not, however, be read as a promise of rapid grant: AI and data-related claims will still need a clear technical contribution, adequate disclosure and defensible claim boundaries. Applicants considering the route should verify the eligibility criteria, supporting documents and fee-reduction conditions before filing, and prepare an examination strategy that explains how the claimed model or data-processing method produces a concrete technical effect.