Insights

The list of case-library entries published by the Supreme People's Court Intellectual Property Tribunal on 27 January 2026 shows that (2022) Zui Gao Fa Zhi Xing Zhong No. 870, a German patent company's action against the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) and a Japanese company over the invalidation of an invention patent, has been selected as a reference case in the People's Court Case Library. The headnote states that when, in the oral hearing of a patent invalidation review, CNIPA finds some amended claims unacceptable, it must allow the patentee to delete the unacceptable claims from the current claim set and proceed on the remaining acceptable claims.

Yasmon, Director of Cooperation, Empowerment and Education at Indonesia's Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DJKI) under the Ministry of Law, spoke for Indonesia and the Like-Minded Countries at the 53rd session of WIPO's Intergovernmental Committee on Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore (IGC), held in Geneva in hybrid format from 16 to 25 September. According to the ministry's statement of 21 September, Indonesia is pushing to accelerate discussion of an effective and balanced international legal instrument to protect traditional knowledge and traditional cultural expressions against misappropriation and misuse. The Like-Minded Countries welcomed the WIPO Treaty on Intellectual Property, Genetic Resources and Associated Traditional Knowledge adopted in 2024 and support faster implementation through international cooperation, technical assistance and capacity building for developing countries.

Thailand's Department of Intellectual Property (DIP) held bilateral talks with the National Copyright Administration of China (NCAC) in Beijing on 21 September. DIP Director-General Oramon Sapthaweetham led the delegation and exchanged views with NCAC Director-General Wang Zhicheng on how the two countries' copyright protection systems should develop. According to the DIP's announcement, the talks focused on three subjects: copyright management of the use of public-domain musical works, the suppression of online copyright infringement, and the relationship between copyright and artificial intelligence. The two agencies also agreed to extend their cooperation so that it keeps pace with technological change and with the ways works are now exploited. The DIP frames the meeting as part of meeting the challenges of the digital age, protecting rights holders and creating opportunities to exploit creative works.

Thailand's Department of Intellectual Property (DIP) issued a press release on 21 September making online infringement of films, series and other digital content a priority for enforcement. Director-General Oramon Sapthaweetham said that digital technology lets the public reach films and other content conveniently through online platforms but is also being used to redistribute pirated content. The DIP has received complaints from platform providers about such redistribution and is verifying them. It is coordinating with platform providers, internet service providers and the relevant agencies so that infringing content can be deterred and blocked promptly. The release restates that under Thailand's Copyright Act commercial infringement carries imprisonment of 6 months to 4 years, a fine of 100,000 to 800,000 baht, or both.

On 22 September the Taiwan Intellectual Property Office (TIPO) announced its Guidelines on Linking Corporate IP with ESG, issued by its first patent examination division, to help companies integrate intellectual property strategy with ESG-based sustainable management and to offer IP portfolio strategies for green industries in response to climate change and net-zero trends. On trademarks, the guidelines set out three routes: obtaining officially recognised green certification marks, building a portfolio of green trademarks that meet the definition of net-zero emissions, and working environment-friendly wording into trademark design, while expressly warning against the risk of greenwashing. On patents, they advise applicants to mark the green-technology Y02 codes of the Cooperative Patent Classification (CPC) proactively, to use the green-technology section of TIPO's Global Patent Search System or WIPO's IPC Green Inventory to pin down core green technologies, and to use the green-technology accelerated examination mechanism to shorten the examination of the relevant invention patents. The guidelines come with a series of landmark case studies to help companies turn R&D results and brand assets into competitive green IP.

What makes the guidelines unusual is that they put trademarks, patents and ESG compliance in one framework rather than handling them separately: for the same green technology, the patent side uses Y02 marking and accelerated examination to secure rights quickly, while the brand side uses certification marks and green trademarks to give environmental claims a verifiable basis, and keeps marketing language on the right side of the greenwashing line. J&C recommends that companies with green products or technologies in Taiwan check the trademark and patent lines against the guidelines together: for marks using words such as green, low-carbon or net zero, confirm the goods or services really carry the corresponding certification or track record before filing and advertising; for green-technology patents filed or planned, check whether Y02 has been marked and whether accelerated examination is available; then fold the evidence for both into the sustainability report so that claims and rights stay aligned.

USPTO Director John Squires used the relaunch of the Director's Blog on 22 September to describe the Learning from Outcomes to Optimize Patents (LOOP) programme. Launched earlier this year, LOOP links the back end of post-grant review to the front end of examination: after reviewing several hundred discretionary-considerations briefs and finding apparent examination errors in some challenged patents, the Office began turning the experience of Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) judges and the outcomes of post-grant proceedings into examiner training. Roughly 150 post-grant proceedings have been reviewed in detail for learning moments and about 4,200 hours of live training delivered, covering more comprehensive and targeted prior-art searching, clearer and more defensible examination records, reasons for allowance that explain why a patent issues, and search strategies improved from the search errors petitioners point out. The Director added that the lessons are also being used to refine classification pathways and to inform AI-enhanced search tools.

Alongside LOOP, an Official Gazette notice issued by the USPTO in September moves PTAB experience further forward into pre-appeal procedure: in a pilot in Technology Center 1700 (chemistry and materials), a PTAB administrative patent judge may sit as the third panelist in a pre-appeal brief conference and may replace the second examiner as the third conferee in an appeal conference, which the Director says will supply 300 hours of PTAB expertise, with expansion to further technology centers if the pilot succeeds. The notice draws the boundaries: the judge acts only in an advisory role to the examiner with signatory authority; a judge who took part in the conference will not sit on the PTAB panel that later decides that appeal; and the judge's participation is not appellate review by the PTAB, so an examiner's withdrawal of a rejection after the conference is not a PTAB decision and triggers no patent term adjustment. Taken together, this is not another internal programme but an institutional direction: problems exposed in post-grant challenges, PTAB appeals and real disputes are beginning to shape, systematically and in reverse, how examiners search, how they justify allowance and how appeals are reviewed before they reach the Board. J&C recommends that US applicants treat this trend as a practical constraint on drafting and prosecution: claims should withstand PTAB-style searching and argument, and responses should put the distinctions over the closest prior art on the record so the examiner can write a substantive reason for allowance; applicants in chemistry and materials who seek pre-appeal review or appeal should expect a PTAB judge in the conference, argue as if before a Board panel, and note that a rejection withdrawn after such a conference earns no patent term adjustment.