Insights

This article updates our report of 12 July, “Mexico’s New Industrial Property Rules Take Effect on 23 July”.

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 23 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.

This article updates our report of 12 July, “USPTO representation rule for foreign applicants takes effect July 20”.

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. WIPO has not, however, announced 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.

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 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.

Singapore’s Intellectual Property Office (IPOS) has refined its practice guidance for trade mark applications covering virtual goods and Web3.0 services. Descriptions in Class 9 for downloadable virtual goods, Class 35 for retail services involving virtual goods, and Class 41 for virtual entertainment services are expected to identify the digital content or service with greater precision; broad wording such as “virtual goods” or generic NFT-related services may attract objections or require narrowing.

The more consequential point concerns revocation for five years’ non-use. Displaying a branded virtual item in a metaverse environment may not, by itself, establish genuine commercial use in Singapore. Rights holders should retain transaction records, payment or redemption data, Singapore-directed marketing materials, and evidence of customer or order location. The practical message is clear: filing broadly for future virtual offerings is no substitute for a defensible chain of local commercial evidence.

On 16 July, regional IP firm Al-Ajaleen published an update revisiting Qatar’s implementation of the GCC Trademark Law. The development should not be read as a new law taking effect this week: Qatar’s Ministerial Decision No. 56 and its implementing regulations were published in the Official Gazette on 9 July 2023 and entered into force on 10 August 2023. The framework shortened several examination, response and opposition periods, while revising official fees for registration, renewal and related procedures.

For international brand owners, closer alignment across GCC jurisdictions can reduce procedural divergence, but it has not created an EU-style unitary trademark or a single regional filing office. Applications must still be filed country by country, and local practice in Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates should be checked separately for deadlines, fees, classification and enforcement. The practical gain is greater legal consistency across a portfolio—not one registration covering the Gulf.