Insights

This article updates our report of 10 August, “Baurin Keeps OTDP Alive Beyond Patent-Term Extension Concerns”.

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s Appeals Review Panel (ARP) issued a precedential decision on August 6, 2026 in Ex parte Baurin (Appeal 2024-002920), reinstating the examiner’s obviousness-type double patenting (OTDP) rejection of claims 1–18. The panel concluded that Federal Circuit precedent still recognizes an independent anti-harassment rationale for OTDP even where the later patent would not create an unjustified timewise extension of exclusivity. The concern is that separately owned patents covering obvious variants of the same invention could expose licensees or accused infringers to repeated assertions by different owners; the USPTO’s terminal disclaimer framework, including its common-ownership requirement, is intended in part to address that risk.

For U.S. prosecution strategy, the practical point is straightforward: applicants cannot assume that the absence of a later expiration date ends the OTDP inquiry. Related applications, overlapping inventorship and portfolios that may later be divided among different owners still warrant a coordinated review of OTDP, terminal disclaimers and ownership structure. The ARP itself also questioned whether anti-harassment should remain a freestanding rationale because of the costs it may impose on innovation, leaving further clarification to the Federal Circuit. Until that occurs, applicants should treat anti-harassment as part of the USPTO’s current precedential OTDP framework rather than relying on patent-term comparison alone.

The Canadian Intellectual Property Office (CIPO) formally launched its Key Technology Expedited Program (KTEP) on September 2, 2026, with the first pilot stream focused on critical minerals innovation. Eligible patent applications covering areas such as mining extraction, mineral processing, battery-material innovation and refining technologies may enter the accelerated queue without an additional expedited-examination fee. CIPO says applications accepted into the stream are expected to receive a First Office Action within about seven months.

The practical value is not simply faster prosecution. Earlier examination can give applicants a clearer view of claim scope and potential obstacles while there is still time to adjust continuation, divisional or international filing strategy. Companies planning Canadian protection for critical-minerals technologies should therefore assess whether their applications fit KTEP’s eligibility criteria and make sure the specification and claims clearly connect the invention to the targeted technology area.

Brazil’s National Institute of Industrial Property (INPI) issued Ordinance No. 07/2026 on 1 September 2026, easing the monthly cap for prioritized examination requests in telecommunications technologies classified under IPC H04, one of the areas facing the heaviest examination backlog. Under the new rule, each applicant may submit up to three H04 prioritized examination requests per month, compared with the previous limit of one. Requests will continue to be allocated on a first-come, first-served basis, while startups and certain protected or vulnerable groups remain exempt from the monthly cap.

The change does not alter the broader eligibility framework for prioritized examination, but it gives frequent filers substantially more room to accelerate telecommunications cases. For companies managing larger H04 portfolios, the practical question is now less about whether a monthly slot exists and more about which applications should use it first. Cases tied to product launches, licensing discussions, standards-related strategies or financing milestones may deserve priority, and applicants should prepare request materials in advance because the first-come, first-served system still makes timing relevant.

EUIPO’s Design Reform framework now brings several practical changes into sharper focus under the renamed “EU Design” system, replacing the former Registered Community Design terminology. Multiple applications are no longer confined by the former Locarno-class unity requirement, although a single filing may contain no more than 50 designs. The representation rules have also become more digital: dynamic 3D models may be filed in formats such as OBJ and STL, while animations can be represented through video files, giving applicants a clearer route for protecting moving graphical user interfaces and other non-static visual features. The reform also extends design-right relevance to digital files used for 3D printing and embeds a permanent repair-clause framework for component parts used to restore a complex product’s original appearance.

The practical effect is broader than a change of terminology. Applicants gain more flexibility in grouping designs, but digital representations also demand much tighter drafting discipline: a 3D model, animated transition or moving GUI must make the claimed visual subject matter intelligible from the outset. For businesses active in automotive parts, consumer interfaces or 3D-print file distribution, design filing strategy now needs to be considered alongside aftermarket repair, digital-file circulation and cross-border sales rather than treated as a purely static-product exercise.

Policy signals released around 2 September, ahead of the 15th China Intellectual Property Annual Conference, indicate that the China National Intellectual Property Administration is preparing to test cross-border recognition of data intellectual property registration certificates in selected free trade zones. The first pilots are expected to focus on links with ASEAN partners including Singapore and Malaysia. The move sits alongside China’s 15th Five-Year Plan for intellectual property, which calls for further exploration of rules for protecting data-related intellectual property, and would extend domestic registration experiments toward cross-border commercial use.

If the pilot framework develops as outlined, its immediate value is more likely to be evidentiary and transactional than equivalent to creating a unitary patent- or trademark-style right. Companies will still need to examine the legality of data sources, contractual chains of authorisation, trade-secret protection and cross-border data compliance in each market. Much will depend on the detailed bilateral or pilot rules, including whether certificates are accepted for transactions, financing, dispute evidence or administrative recognition in Singapore, Malaysia and other participating jurisdictions. For now, firms with regional data assets should strengthen their ownership and compliance records rather than assume that mutual recognition will by itself resolve cross-border legal uncertainty.

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.

According to an update dated 1 September 2026, IP Australia has introduced a mandatory disclosure step for AI-assisted patent drafting and incorporated the declaration into front-end system checks. The change shifts the use of generative AI from a largely internal drafting issue into the procedural compliance workflow: before an application proceeds through ordinary examination, applicants may need to address whether AI-assisted drafting has been used and ensure that the disclosure is consistent with inventorship, entitlement and the substance of the filed documents. Australia’s existing position that an inventor must be a natural person remains important here; the reported change is about transparency and accountability in the preparation process, not recognition of AI as an inventor.

For companies and patent professionals already using AI to structure technical material, produce draft language or refine specifications, the practical issue is traceability. A sensible filing workflow would retain records of how AI was used, identify the human technical contribution and document the final human review alongside inventorship confirmation. If declaration information and application materials do not align, front-end checks could create additional procedural friction or requests for clarification. The underlying patentability standards may be unchanged, but the compliance question is moving earlier: applicants now have stronger reasons to know exactly what role AI played before the application is filed.