Insights

China’s trademark authority has announced that, from 1 July 2026, trademark matters handled through agencies should in principle be filed electronically through the CNIPA online service system rather than on paper. The change covers filing, examination and official communications, while matters involving electronic evidence must follow the relevant submission guidance.

For agencies, this is more than a change of delivery channel. Account permissions, client authorisations, evidence formats, version control and deadline records will need tighter internal management. A fuller digital trail should improve traceability and may help regulators identify abnormal filing patterns, but electronic filing does not replace substantive review. Applicants should still check for exceptions and retain complete filing receipts and final document sets.

On 2 July 2026, the China National Intellectual Property Administration published detailed analyses of the ten representative patent reexamination and invalidation cases for 2025, expanding on the case summaries released in April. In the AI-related case concerning the generation of dynamic images from audio, the patent was upheld and the panel treated model design, model training and model application as distinct stages when applying the inventive-step test. The analysis indicates that examiners should look at the application scenario, data or object being processed, the training method and the resulting technical effect, rather than dismissing a new use of an algorithm as a routine substitution.

The pharmaceutical case involving Pfizer’s crizotinib crystal form also sharpened the standard for post-filed experimental data. Such evidence is not automatically excluded, but the claimed technical effect must be derivable from the original disclosure, the testing method must be sound, the results reliable, and the evidence open to challenge by the other party. The practical message is straightforward: in complex technologies, patent strength increasingly depends on what the original filing actually explains about technical effects, training or testing conditions, and the basis for comparison. A traceable evidentiary record at filing is far more dependable than a broad explanation added later.

CNIPA’s 2026 administrative protection work plan calls for closer coordination with commerce authorities and stricter management of outbound intellectual property transfers connected to technology exports. The measure does not create a wholly new approval track, but it points to more disciplined review of cross-border deals involving restricted technologies, core patents, software rights and other strategic know-how.

For companies in biopharmaceuticals and advanced manufacturing, the practical risk extends beyond an outright patent sale. Exclusive licences, bundled technology packages and control changes may also attract scrutiny. Businesses should classify the technology, verify ownership and licensing scope, and build a clear record of the deal’s purpose and likely impact before signing. Tighter review is not the same as a blanket ban, but transactions that leave compliance until after execution may face greater delay and closing uncertainty.

Following the launch of the EU–Japan Intellectual Property Action on 27 April and the May renewal of the JPO–EUIPO memorandum on trade marks and designs, the Japan Patent Office has further clarified how the cooperation is expected to work in cross-border e-commerce cases. The emerging framework centres on faster exchanges of information about suspected trade mark and design infringements, allowing platforms, rights holders and competent authorities in both markets to align evidence and enforcement steps before sellers shift listings or inventory across borders.

The mechanism will not replace the separate complaint, customs and litigation procedures that apply in Japan and the European Union. Its practical benefit lies in timing: brands may be better placed to coordinate takedowns, border measures or warning actions against the same infringement network. Companies should therefore standardise product identifiers, ownership and licensing records, and design-comparison materials across their Japanese and EU teams; quicker official communication will add little value if the underlying evidence remains fragmented.

On 3 July 2026, South Korea’s Ministry of Intellectual Property (MOIP) announced amendments to the Enforcement Rules of the Trademark Act, effective from 17 June. For international trademark registrations designating South Korea under the Madrid System, the exemption from filing a separate representative notification has been broadened. Previously, the exemption applied when the first filing was a request to extend a designated period; it now also covers cases where the first filing is a request to extend a statutory period.

The change is modest, but practical. It should reduce avoidable correspondence and procedural corrections caused by non-substantive filing defects, especially for non-resident applicants working through local representatives. It does not alter substantive examination standards or guarantee a shorter examination period, so applicants should still verify powers of representation, deadline categories and filing formalities before relying on the simplified route.

New Zealand has announced a further update to its plant variety rights (PVR) framework. The government plans to add five years to the maximum term of both existing and newly granted rights, restore the ability to enforce interim protection while an application is pending, and bring PVR fee-setting into closer alignment with the patent system. IPONZ says the amending bill is expected later in 2026, so the scope, transitional rules and commencement dates remain subject to the legislation. The July 1 issue of the Plant Variety Rights Journal, No. 186, mainly covers DUS trial deadlines, technical meetings, a CPVO visit and restoration procedures; the substantive reform package was announced separately by IPONZ on May 15.

The policy case is clear: breeders need a longer and more predictable period in which to recover research, trial and market-entry costs, particularly where examination takes several years. Stronger interim protection could make New Zealand more attractive to overseas breeders and investors in seeds and high-value horticulture, but the commercial effect will depend on how far protection can reach back, how existing grants are treated, and whether enforcement remains proportionate in cost. Breeders and licensees should therefore review filing schedules, trial records, commercial agreements and evidence-preservation practices now, rather than treating the announcement as a fully operative legal regime.