Insights

As Kazakhstan’s package of intellectual property amendments, signed in November 2025 and brought into implementation from January 2026, begins to take practical effect, one of the most consequential changes for brand owners has moved from policy headline to usable procedure: within a trademark system where ordinary examination still typically takes around seven months, the accelerated route compresses the full review cycle to roughly three months. For businesses assessing how and when to enter Central Asia, that is not merely an administrative improvement. It changes the sequencing of clearance, launch, channel negotiations and enforcement planning.

From the perspective of Chinese and other export-oriented companies, Kazakhstan often functions not only as a destination market but also as a regional foothold for distribution, pilot operations and brand testing across Central Asia. Once the trademark timeline is materially shortened, the chances increase that a company can secure its brand before a product launch, stabilise rights before appointing distributors, and build a cleaner evidence chain before localised operations or cross-border e-commerce begin. But speed does not eliminate risk. The real shift is that trademark filing now needs to move forward in the market-entry calendar, rather than remain a remedial step after business has already started.

On December 12, 2025, the USPTO updated the PTAB Trial Practice Guide to provide that, for AIA trial cases instituted under the process implemented on October 17, 2025, the Board will hold a pre-hearing conference with the parties no later than fifteen days before the oral hearing. For parties in inter partes review (IPR) and post-grant review (PGR), this means that disputes often treated as matters for final-stage oral emphasis—claim construction, the rationale for combining prior art, and objective indicia of nonobviousness—are now formally pulled forward into an earlier and more structured procedural checkpoint.

This is more than a scheduling refinement. The PTAB has also indicated that the conference is designed not only to signal which issues the panel would like addressed at the hearing, but also to give the parties a chance to identify issues they want raised at the hearing, and to discuss certain pending motions, limited evidentiary admissibility issues, and unresolved demonstrative disputes. For companies and counsel, the practical shift is significant: oral advocacy is no longer just a last hearing-day performance. It is increasingly a two-step contest made up of pre-hearing issue management and formal oral presentation, with the quality of preparation for the first stage shaping the effectiveness of the second.

The application window for the WIPO Global Awards 2026 will close on March 31 at 23:59 Central European Time. The program is open to startups and SMEs from all 194 WIPO Member States, but the real test is not simply whether a business owns patents, trademarks, designs or copyrights. The stronger question is whether those rights have already been turned into something economically and socially legible: market entry, product differentiation, licensing leverage, investor credibility, operational scale, or measurable public impact. For innovative companies that already sit on a meaningful mix of technology, brand, design or content assets, this is not just another award deadline. It is a deadline for translating IP strategy into an international growth narrative.

This year’s most notable development is the addition of a new Sports Prize, introduced in line with the 2026 World IP Day theme, “IP and Sports.” On the surface, that looks like a thematic expansion of the awards structure. At a deeper level, it signals something more important: the international conversation around IP is moving further away from static ownership and closer to real-world commercialization, sector relevance and demonstrable social value. For startups and SMEs rushing toward the deadline, the most valuable preparation is therefore not just polishing a company profile. It is building a persuasive explanation of why their IP has already become an engine of growth.

The IP5 offices — CNIPA, the EPO, the JPO, the KIPO and the USPTO — have jointly decided to extend the IP5 Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) pilot for another three years, from January 6, 2026 to January 5, 2029. The offices also made clear that the requirements and procedures for filing PPH requests under the pilot will remain unchanged. In practical terms, applicants will still be able to rely on an existing and familiar work-sharing route to accelerate related patent applications across major jurisdictions at a time when examination efficiency, budget discipline and filing speed are becoming more tightly linked.

On its face, this looks like a routine renewal notice. In reality, it is a stronger policy signal about continuity. The IP5 did not use the renewal to rewrite the interface, narrow access, or impose new procedural burdens. Instead, it preserved a tool that applicants, in-house teams and external counsel already know how to use. For businesses trying to align patent timing with fundraising, licensing, product launch, freedom-to-operate planning or cross-border technology partnerships, the real value is not simply that PPH remains available. It is that the way to use it is not suddenly changing over the next three years.

In March 2026, the EUIPO used a joint webinar to push the implementation signal of CP16 and CP17 into the market again. The two Common Practices focus respectively on when a sign describing the subject matter of goods or services may be refused as descriptive, and when a slogan can still function as a trade mark. What matters here is less a sudden statutory change than a broader shift in examination culture: issues that used to depend heavily on office-specific instincts are being pulled into a more structured and more predictable framework across European trade mark practice.

For brand owners, the significance is practical. European trade mark assessment is moving from a world where applicants merely know which examples are risky to one where they can increasingly anticipate the logic behind refusals. Read together with CP14 on public policy and morality and CP15 on the comparison of goods and services, CP16 and CP17 are not just two new documents. They are another step in aligning how offices analyse descriptiveness, promotional wording and filing specifications before disputes even begin.

On 26 March 2026, Advocate General Nicholas Emiliou delivered his Opinion in Case C-579/24 Austro-Mechana and AKM, adding an important new layer to the licensing architecture for online content-sharing service providers under the EU Copyright in the Digital Single Market Directive. In his view, when users upload protected content to a platform, the process does not involve only an act of communication to the public or making available to the public; it also involves acts of reproduction in the form of digital copies made on the platform’s servers.

The real significance of the Opinion, however, is not that it creates a fresh licensing tollbooth. Emiliou also argues that the authorisation which an online content-sharing service provider must obtain under Article 17(1) of the DSM Directive for communication to the public or making available to the public necessarily extends to the technically required reproductions made on its servers in order to give the public access to that content. If the Court follows that approach, the practical result would be highly consequential: platform compliance, licensing negotiations with collective management organisations, and the allocation of responsibility between platforms and users would all move further toward a single integrated authorisation model rather than a stacked, double-licensing structure.