Insights

From January 1, 2026, China’s revised Patent Examination Guidelines move same-day dual filing out of the realm of informal filing tactics and back into a tightly structured statutory exception. According to CNIPA’s official interpretation issued on December 4, 2025, where the same applicant files both an invention patent application and a utility model application for the same invention-creation on the same filing date, the applicant must make a same-day double-filing declaration at the filing stage for each application. If that declaration is missing, the invention application may still be rejected under Article 9.1 of the Patent Law once CNIPA discovers that a corresponding utility model right has already been granted.

What matters even more is that the revision largely closes off a common assumption in practice: that an applicant who failed to declare at filing might later rescue the invention case by abandoning the already granted utility model. For companies, patent firms, and cross-border filing teams that have relied on China’s dual-track protection logic, this is not just a procedural reminder. It is a rule change that can directly affect filing timing, disclosure discipline, instruction management, and portfolio design.

On March 23, China’s National Intellectual Property Administration joined the Ministry of Public Security and the State Administration for Market Regulation at a press briefing to disclose the phased results of a special campaign targeting unlawful conduct in the patent and trademark agency sector. Since November 2025, authorities have focused on seven categories of misconduct, including fabricated applicants, leasing or lending professional qualifications, and improper client solicitation. Within three months, 61 patent and trademark agencies and 22 patent attorneys had been subjected to penalties including business suspension and revocation, while enforcement also extended to online advertising cleanup, platform account controls, and criminal investigation of related cases.

What makes the campaign more significant is that it no longer looks like a narrow enforcement burst aimed at a handful of bad actors. Official figures indicate that self-inspection and rectification covered more than 50,000 agencies; 187 patent agencies and 1,279 branch offices were removed or cleaned up; nearly 10,000 trademark agencies that failed identity verification were restricted from handling business; and 1.736 million abnormal patent e-filing accounts were cleared. For corporate IP teams, agencies, and platform operators, the key 2026 question is no longer whether scrutiny will continue, but how compliance, personnel control, account governance, and client-acquisition models will be redefined.

On March 19, 2026, the U.S. Copyright Office announced in NewsNet that it would publish a proposed rule in the Federal Register to seek public comment on adjustments to its fee schedule. The proposed rule was published on March 20, 2026, and written comments are due by May 4, 2026, at 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time. The notice launches a new round of public debate over the pricing of copyright registration, recordation, and related administrative services.

This is not simply a routine pricing update. The Office explained that it reviews and updates fees every few years, with the last adjustment adopted in 2020. Since then, inflation and rising operating costs have widened the gap between user fees and the cost of delivering services. The current proposal is designed to restore overall cost recovery to roughly 60 percent, a level the Office describes as broadly consistent with historical practice. Just as important, the Office signaled that it plans to separately seek comment on tiered or subscription-style fee models in the future, suggesting that the long-term debate may extend well beyond the dollar amounts in the present rulemaking.

China’s National Intellectual Property Administration has released its 2026 legislative work plan, placing the revision of the Trademark Law, the revision of the Regulations on the Protection of Layout-Designs of Integrated Circuits, and amendments to the Measures for the Administration of Priority Patent Examination on the year’s formal agenda. For companies and practitioners, this is more than a list of drafting tasks. It is a policy map showing where the Chinese IP system is likely to tighten, clarify, and modernize next.

What stands out is not only the individual projects, but the combined direction they suggest. Brand governance, patent examination acceleration, semiconductor-related rights, and related implementation rules are being advanced within the same annual framework. That points to a broader regulatory objective: closing institutional gaps, improving coordination across filing, examination, protection, and commercialization, and building a more usable legal infrastructure for emerging sectors.

Effective January 1, 2026, the 13th edition of the Nice Classification (NCL 13-2026) introduced a set of changes that go well beyond editorial cleanup. Several commonly used goods were reclassified into new classes: spectacles, contact lenses and sunglasses moved to Class 10; electric toothbrushes moved to Class 21; heated clothing moved to Class 25; emergency and rescue vehicles moved to Class 12. Class 42 also added new terminology including “Artificial intelligence as a service (AIaaS).”

For businesses preparing new trademark filings, international extensions, renewals or portfolio reviews, these shifts matter because classification is not just a filing formality. It affects how goods and services are described, how clearance searches are framed, and how protection strategies are coordinated across jurisdictions. In practice, 2026 is becoming a reset point for trademark specification drafting rather than a routine annual update.

As of 1 March 2026, ARIPO’s major amendments to the Banjul Protocol framework have entered into force, reshaping how regional trademark filings will be budgeted, timed and managed. The most visible change is financial: the e-filing application fee has increased from USD 80 to USD 160, the paper filing fee from USD 100 to USD 200, the registration fee for each designated member state from USD 100 to USD 150, and the renewal fee from USD 100 to USD 200 per designated state.

But the reform is not only about higher charges. The new rules also introduce updated forms and a more structured alignment with ARIPO’s online filing environment, shorten the refusal period to six months, add a six-month exhibition priority claim, revise time-limit computation, impose a transmittal fee in opposition proceedings, and consolidate English as the official procedural language. For businesses using ARIPO as a multi-country trademark route in Africa, the reform signals a shift from convenience-driven filing to more disciplined, front-loaded decision-making.