Insights

Update (24 September 2026): CIPO launched the Key Technology Expedited Program (KTEP) pilot on 2 September 2026 (see our report of 5 September); implementation details for the fee-based Track 1 route have not yet been published.

As CIPO's public consultation on faster patent examination approaches its June 23 close, the Canadian system is starting to show a much clearer shape. The existing green-technology fast lane is not being displaced. Instead, it has become the reference point for a broader redesign that now puts 2 additional pathways into sharper focus: a fee-based Track 1 ultra-fast program for general applicants, and a no-fee accelerated route for patent applications tied to key technology areas.

This matters for more than speed. CIPO is gradually turning acceleration from a simple question of whether an application can move faster into a more structured question of who can obtain faster treatment, on what procedural terms, and for which policy purposes. For applicants, that will affect filing timing, claim discipline, response strategy and budget planning. At the system level, it suggests that examination order in Canada may become more explicitly linked to industrial and innovation priorities.

As of June 18, 2026, the USPTO has moved the Open Data Portal (ODP) fully into an account-based access model. On paper, that looks like a security and traffic-management change aimed at unregistered bulk access. In practice, it is more than that. The agency is starting to separate ordinary public use from industrial-scale extraction of patent data, and it is doing so through identity, registration, and controllable access.

The more consequential signal for patent teams is that AI-assisted drafting is getting harder to treat as a routine productivity layer. Once generative AI is used in specifications, claims, or IDS preparation in any meaningful way, applicants and counsel need to be prepared to show that the core inventive conception remained human, and that AI-generated language or references were reviewed closely enough to support filing certifications and disclosure obligations. The real shift is not whether AI can be used. It is that vague use is becoming much riskier.

As of 20 June 2026, Thailand’s Department of Intellectual Property (DIP) is no longer merely experimenting with faster trademark procedures for the digital economy. The Fast Track 4 Month Plus+ route has started to show what it really is: not a relaxed shortcut, but a tightly managed lane for applicants that can present a clean, e-filed, single-class case with standard specifications, prior searches, and a credible need to use the mark on online platforms. For businesses racing to secure a filing position before marketplace launches or platform onboarding, that is useful news. It also means the price of speed is discipline.

At the same time, Thailand is moving on a second front that matters just as much for digital business. After a further round of public consultation, the draft law on collective management organizations (CMOs) for copyright and performers’ rights is taking on clearer regulatory shape. The practical issue is not abstract copyright theory. It is the messier question of who may license music and related rights, on what terms, with what disclosure, and under what oversight when platforms, intermediaries, venues, and online businesses all sit somewhere in the licensing chain. Read together, the trademark fast track and the CMO bill point in the same direction: Thailand is trying to make IP administration faster at the front end and more accountable at the licensing end.

IPOS has now drawn a cleaner timeline for applicants using the Patent Prosecution Highway in Singapore. For PPH requests filed on or after 1 July 2026, the Office says it will endeavour to issue a first office action in about 6 months, down from about 10 months for existing requests. For patent owners already holding allowable claims from a partner office, that changes more than queue position. It brings prosecution timing, internal decision-making and commercial milestones forward together.

The more interesting point is that the speed benefit and the fee benefit do not start on the same day. IPOS’ public materials currently show the 30% front-end fee saving taking effect from 3 August 2026 through 31 December 2027, while SG Patents Fast remains suspended for new requests. So the July window is mainly about time. The August window is time plus cost. That distinction will matter for applicants deciding whether to move immediately or wait a few weeks.

Indonesia’s latest IP overhaul is no longer just a matter of digitising old procedures. As Ministry of Law Regulation No. 6 of 2026 on patent applications and Regulation No. 5 of 2026 on trademark registration move deeper into day-to-day practice, patents, trademarks, and online enforcement are starting to shift at the same time: patentable subject matter is broader, trademark filing is fully electronic, and online infringement is being pushed into a more operational blocking and access-restriction framework.

The real story is not that one rule became stricter than another. It is that filing strategy, budget timing, office-action readiness, and platform compliance are being pulled forward together. For teams working on AI, software, digital services, marketplaces, or regional brand rollouts, Indonesia is sending a mixed but very readable signal: the door is opening wider, but the margin for messy preparation is shrinking.

Vietnam’s response to the U.S. Section 301 intellectual-property investigation is now moving on a compressed clock. On April 30, 2026, USTR identified Vietnam as the only Priority Foreign Country in its Special 301 Report. On May 29, it formally opened a Section 301 investigation, and written comments are due by July 2 at 11:59 p.m. EDT. By mid-June, IP Vietnam had publicly pushed forward the legal-service-provider selection and follow-up guidance for the government’s defense work, a sign that the matter has moved beyond general positioning and into a final evidence-and-arguments sprint.

The complaints now sitting at the center of the case are unusually practical. U.S. materials focus not only on online piracy and counterfeit sales, but also on bad-faith trademark filings that can trap brand owners in delay and extra cost. That matters because these are not abstract treaty points. They are the types of problems that multinational brands, platforms, e-commerce operators, and content businesses can measure in daily operations. Vietnam is therefore under pressure to show not just goodwill, but mechanisms that look concrete, durable, and verifiable.