Insights

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 6 August 2026, the European Commission and the EUIPO Observatory issued a targeted governance memorandum addressing open-hardware hosting services and communities that share 3D-printable models. The initiative brings these services more clearly into the intellectual-property risk framework surrounding the Digital Services Act (DSA), with particular attention to weak rights-verification practices for digital design files. Platforms are expected to strengthen technical measures such as design-map matching and duplicate detection when handling .STL files and other models that may reproduce protected patents or industrial designs.

The regulatory focus is moving beyond listings for infringing finished goods toward digital files that can be used directly for manufacturing. How a platform responds after a trusted-flagger or rights-holder notice—including restricting downloads and limiting repeat uploads—may become an important measure of whether its safeguards are adequate. Open sharing is not being treated as inherently unlawful, but platforms that repeatedly ignore well-supported rights conflicts could face materially higher compliance and liability exposure. Rights holders, in turn, have a practical reason to maintain file fingerprints, version histories and clear ownership records so that notices can be assessed quickly and with less ambiguity.

On 24 March 2026, Japan’s Intellectual Property High Court overturned the JPO’s earlier decision invalidating Broad Institute CRISPR-Cas9 patent claims. The dispute centred on whether priority from the underlying applications had been validly transferred before the PCT filing. The court held that status as a “successor in title” under Article 4A(1) of the Paris Convention does not invariably depend on objective written evidence such as a formal deed of assignment; a shared intention between transferor and transferee to transfer the priority right before the PCT filing can be sufficient.

The ruling is significant as the first high-court-level judgment addressing the validity of a CRISPR-Cas9 patent priority claim, but its practical reach is broader than biotechnology. It softens a rigid documentary approach without making priority transfers evidence-free: applicants should still preserve contemporaneous records showing who agreed to transfer the right, when the agreement was reached and what it covered. For multinational R&D collaborations and PCT filings involving multiple applicants, documenting the chain of title before filing remains the safer course, particularly because later validity proceedings may turn on factual proof of the parties’ agreement.

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.