Insights

Businesses seeking help with intellectual property issues in China or Russia now have an official referral route through their home IP office. CNIPA and Rospatent launched a one-year focal point pilot on 15 September 2026. Each office designates an officer to pass enquiries to the counterpart office, which is to respond within a reasonable period. Neither announcement sets a fixed response time. According to CNIPA’s announcement, the pilot runs until 14 September 2027.

For companies navigating unfamiliar administrative procedures, the channel offers a way to seek clarification from the relevant authority. JCIPO recommends setting out the case background, relevant application or registration numbers and precise questions so that the enquiry can be referred and followed up efficiently. The announcements establish no representation, dispute-resolution or deadline-suspension procedure. Companies should therefore handle formal filings and remedies separately and keep their own calendar for oppositions, renewals and litigation.

CIPO has scheduled MyCIPO Patents downtime for 17 September 2026, from 07:00 to 09:00 Eastern Time, and an extended window on 20 September, from 00:30 to 18:00. In Madrid, these periods run from 13:00 to 15:00 on 17 September and from 06:30 on 20 September to midnight at the start of 21 September. At this morning’s check on 17 September, access problems affecting the Canadian Patents Database remained listed as ongoing because of illegitimate automated traffic. A separate portal outage on 16 September was marked resolved.

A service interruption does not itself suspend filing deadlines: CIPO says they continue to apply unless an extension is provided. JCIPO recommends bringing forward time-sensitive submissions, payments and status checks, verifying receipts and identifying an available communication method permitted for the patent matter concerned. Keep evidence of delivery. A failed database search is not proof that a filing failed, and a maintenance notice should not be treated as permission to file late; the applicable rules and any subsequent official extension must be checked for each case.

South Korea is accepting a second round of K-Brand government certification applications from 14 to 28 September 2026, closing at 18:00 Korean time. The programme pairs a government-owned certification mark with smartphone authenticity checks and plans filings across 73 countries and territories. Verification data would support monitoring, with overseas IP centres helping investigate suspected counterfeits and preserve evidence. This is an exporter support programme, not a new trade mark law or confirmation that registration is complete in every target market.

Eligible applicants are Korean corporations already exporting products. Approval generally requires their own trade mark application or registration in the intended overseas market and compliance with the relevant product quality conditions. Qualifying SMEs and mid-sized enterprises may receive 50% of technology adoption costs, capped at KRW 200 million; large enterprises can seek permission to use the mark but must fund the technology themselves. JCIPO recommends checking overseas rights, product credentials and the funding contribution before applying. Certification should complement the brand owner’s registrations, customs recordals and platform enforcement arrangements.

India will ordinarily stop posting first examination reports for design applications from 2 October 2026. A notice published by IP India on 7 September specifies delivery to the email address recorded under the Indian address for service in Form 1. Paper dispatch remains possible where the Controller records written reasons based on the interests of justice or administrative exigencies. The change has not yet taken effect as of 16 September.

For overseas applicants, a functioning mailbox at the Indian agent is only one part of a reliable reporting chain. JCIPO recommends checking the registered address for pending applications before 2 October, assigning responsibility for forwarding reports and arranging backup inbox monitoring. Applicants should also review spam folders and online case status, and update contact details through the prescribed procedure. The notice changes the delivery channel; a missed email should not be treated as an automatic extension of the response period.

Invoking political speech does not automatically justify using a reputed trade mark. In its 8 September 2026 judgment in Inter IKEA Systems, the CJEU required an assessment of good faith, the contribution to public debate and the impact on the brand owner. The dispute concerns IKEA signs used in Belgian political campaigning. The Court indicated that borrowing the marks solely to amplify a political message appeared insufficient to outweigh the proprietor’s interests, subject to verification by the national court. It did not decide the underlying infringement dispute.

Brand protection teams should distinguish commercial use from non-commercial use covered by additional national protection: the balance can differ. JCIPO recommends retaining campaign materials and evidence of reach, reputation and any suggestion of brand endorsement, alongside evidence of unfair advantage or harm, before deciding on escalation. The assessment must also give proper weight to good-faith commentary and public-interest debate. Neither an exclusive trade mark right nor a claim to political expression resolves the case on its own.

TexasLDPC can pursue its patent claims without joining Texas A&M University, the Federal Circuit held in a precedential decision on 14 September 2026. Reversing the dismissal in TexasLDPC v Broadcom, the court found that the licence transferred all substantial patent rights and that the university was not otherwise a required party in this case. Moving to an enforcement-only business had not terminated the agreement: its operative terms expressly contemplated enforcement efforts and sharing litigation recoveries. The ruling addresses the ability to bring the case, not whether infringement occurred.

For university technology transfers and cross-border licensing, the practical question is who controls the rights throughout the relationship. JCIPO recommends reviewing litigation control, sublicensing, revenue sharing, retained rights and termination provisions together, and stating whether enforcement counts towards continuing business and performance obligations. An exclusive licence label alone does not settle who may sue. Even a transfer of all substantial rights leaves a separate inquiry into whether the patent owner must be joined under the applicable procedural rules.