China Customs and CNIPA team up on IP enforcement, with a Section 337 probe, a $5.7bn verdict and AI trade mark rules

What this week has in common is enforcement in practice: data has to match, evidence has to be checkable and contract terms have to be enforceable.

CNIPA and China Customs set up coordinated trade mark and patent protection, and 18 signs notified by WIPO join China's official emblem protection

On 14 October CNIPA and the General Administration of Customs jointly published an Opinion on Strengthening Coordinated Protection of Intellectual Property (Guozhifabaozi [2026] No. 30, signed on 8 October), turning their cross-border cooperation on trade marks and patents from case-by-case assistance into a standing mechanism. CNIPA will regularly give customs its trade mark and patent data and, in particular, share well-known mark recognitions, marks that have been cancelled or invalidated and major administrative rulings on patent infringement; customs will return data on recorded trade marks and patents and on cases in which infringing goods were confiscated.

Where a case turns on similar marks, similar goods or a technically complex patent infringement question, customs may ask the IP administration at the same level for a written expert opinion, and technical investigators may help with complex technology. The Opinion specifically encourages holders of well-known mark recognitions, collective or certification marks registered as geographical indications and companies in key industries such as photovoltaics to apply for customs IP recordal.

On 12 October CNIPA issued Announcement No. 692, bringing 18 signs notified by the WIPO International Bureau under official emblem protection on the basis of Article 6ter of the Paris Convention and Article 10(1) of the Trademark Law. They include national emblems such as coats of arms and flags, and emblems, names and abbreviations of intergovernmental organisations. The announcement is dated 30 September 2026, while WIPO notified the signs on 30 September 2025, so the publication, signature and notification dates should be kept apart; applications containing identical or similar elements may be refused on absolute grounds.

AI server power delivery becomes the subject of a Section 337 probe as Apple asks the court to overturn a $5.7bn patent jury verdict

On 9 October the US International Trade Commission instituted investigation No. 337-TA-1526 on a complaint by Vicor, which says its vertical power delivery patents are infringed. The technology stacks power modules directly beneath high-current processors and is widely used to power AI accelerators and data centre server chips. The 20 named respondents include Luxshare, Hon Hai/Foxconn and Foxconn Industrial Internet, Quanta and its Ingrasys unit, as well as Delta, Infineon, Flex and Celestica. Institution is not a finding of infringement; if a violation of Section 337 is found, the remedies are exclusion and cease-and-desist orders that keep the products out of the US market. Luxshare said the products concerned are not yet in mass production and are not expected to have a material adverse effect on its near-term results.

On 13 October Apple asked the US District Court for the Southern District of California to overturn the $5,721,961,750 patent damages a jury awarded to Taction Technology on 25 September. According to Reuters, this is the largest patent jury verdict in US history; it concerns the Taptic Engine haptic component in the iPhone and Apple Watch, and the jury found the infringement was not wilful. Apple argues the award is untethered from the evidence, that its technology works differently from the patents and that Taction's expert used a test devised for the litigation, and it says it will appeal. Apple won summary judgment of non-infringement in 2023, which the Federal Circuit reversed and remanded in 2025.

Qualcomm wins $2 against Arm, MIT sues AWS, and OpenAI and Apple trade trade-secret allegations

On 13 October a federal jury in Delaware found that Arm breached its architecture licence agreement with Qualcomm and intentionally interfered with Qualcomm's business with Meta, but awarded Qualcomm only $2 in nominal damages, $1 for each of the two claims. The real stakes lie in the finding of breach itself: according to Reuters, the judge may allow Qualcomm to suspend licence payments to Arm for up to five years, while Arm argues the relevant terms are unenforceable, and both sides have claimed victory.

On 9 October the Massachusetts Institute of Technology sued Amazon Web Services in the US District Court for the District of Massachusetts (case no. 1:26-cv-14600), alleging that SRAM PUF hardware security technology used in AWS platforms infringes two MIT US patents. The patents come from an MIT professor's research team's work on physically unclonable functions, and the owner is MIT, not the individual inventors. The case is at the complaint stage and the court has made no findings.

Apple sued former employees and OpenAI in July, alleging that departing engineers took hardware secrets. In a filing in the same court on 14 October, OpenAI said that an employee who left OpenAI for Apple sent more than 100 confidential files relating to an unreleased device to a personal account on the day of departure. Apple said it has found no evidence supporting the allegation; on 13 October the court allowed Apple limited expedited discovery, and the case is at an early stage.

India proposes that AI use in trade mark proceedings be declared and case law self-verified, as more publishers join SPUR to push AI content use and licensing standards

On 17 October India's Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks published draft Guidelines on the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Proceedings before the Trade Marks Registry for public comment; they are not yet in force. Drafted on the direction of the Delhi High Court in Stryten Energy v Nidhi Agarwal, the draft requires a declaration of AI use wherever AI generates substantive legal content in trade mark filings, and requires case citations and factual statements produced by AI to be independently verified, with the filer bearing responsibility. It covers applications, responses, oppositions, rectification and cancellation, renewals, assignments and other proceedings.

Fake or non-existent case law, misstatements of fact and AI-altered evidence are prohibited; once established, the material may be struck from the record or disregarded, and trade mark agents may face disciplinary action. The draft also sets AI-use duties for examiners, registrars and other officials and creates a reporting mechanism for AI hallucinations.

According to Press Gazette, more than 40 publishers including The New York Times, AFP and The Economist joined the Standards for Publisher Usage Rights (SPUR) coalition on 13 October, bringing it to 80 members in more than 20 countries. SPUR does not negotiate for its members; it sets common standards for AI use of news content and has released an open Content Telemetry Standard v1.0 that records how AI crawls, cites and displays content, as a basis for measurement and payment.

Brazil widens bulk checks on trade mark applicants' standing, Oman clarifies prohibited elements and Thailand's search system now shows whether owners still exist

On 16 October Brazil's INPI announced an expansion of its bulk substantive office actions, which require applicants to prove that their declared business activity matches the goods or services applied for. In addition to Classes 3 and 5, Classes 1, 2, 7, 13 and 19 are now included in full, Classes 4, 10, 11, 12 and 34 in full with exceptions, and specific regulated services in Classes 36 to 44 are also covered. The basis is Article 128(1) of Brazil's Industrial Property Law, and applicants must reply within 60 days of publication; individuals, micro-entrepreneurs (MEI) and applicants with an inactive CNPJ are most affected.

On 12 October Oman's national IP office, via the Oman News Agency, set out its current trade mark rules: official flags and emblems and the sovereign symbols of states or international organisations, and signs similar to them, cannot be registered, while images of castles and other historic buildings depend on the elements used; accepted marks are published and interested parties have 60 days to file a written opposition, and registration lasts 10 years from the filing date. This is a practical clarification of existing rules, not a change in the law.

Since 29 September Thailand's Department of Intellectual Property has linked its IP Search trade mark database to the Department of Business Development's company register: where the owner is a legal entity, users can check in the same place whether the company still exists or has been dissolved, is in liquidation, has been struck off or is dormant, free of charge. The aim is to confirm the owner's actual status before an assignment or licence.

Thailand's industrial property filings up 9.59% in the first nine months, copyright notifications up 63.71%

On 12 October Thailand's Department of Intellectual Property published figures for the first nine months: new applications for trade marks, invention patents, petty patents and designs totalled 61,288, up 9.59% year on year, including 45,696 trade marks, with petty patents growing fastest at 18.16%; copyright notifications reached 17,176, up 63.71%. Copyright in Thailand arises on creation and notification is voluntary, so it is not counted in the industrial property figures. Retail and marketing services, health and herbal products and cleaning and beauty products were the busiest areas for trade mark filings.

CNIPA issues an opinion on building the IP public service system

CNIPA has issued an Opinion on Strengthening the Development of the IP Public Service System (Guozhifafuzi [2026] No. 29), aiming for a more complete public service system by 2030. It prioritises high-quality IP datasets and wider data sharing, applies AI to information analysis, examination and adjudication, commercialisation and risk alerts, and proposes exploring AI agents. It is a guidance document on public services and does not change the rules on filing, examination or grant.

WIPO publishes a revised draft Broadcasting Organizations Treaty

WIPO's Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights has published a revised draft Broadcasting Organizations Treaty (SCCR/49/3) and an accompanying options paper (SCCR/49/4) for its 49th session in Geneva from 30 November to 4 December. The draft takes a signal-based approach, and the options paper focuses on whether webcasters are covered, national treatment and reciprocity, and limitations and exceptions. It remains a negotiating text, not an adopted treaty.

01Keep customs recordals in step with legal status

Make customs IP recordal part of routine management and update it promptly after renewals, cancellations, invalidations or transfers; holders of well-known mark recognitions, GI collective or certification marks and companies in key industries such as photovoltaics can consider recording first.

02Check Section 337 risk before exporting to the US

Companies exporting AI servers, data centre components and similar products to the US should follow the patents asserted in Section 337 cases, check whether their products fall within them, assess design-arounds or licences and keep development and supply timelines so they can argue non-infringement at the hearing and at the border.

03Read the triggers in licences and manage staff moves

In long-term licences, review the breach triggers and remedies such as payment suspension, termination and renegotiation; when key staff join or leave, audit devices and accounts, give written notice of confidentiality and non-compete obligations and ring-fence anyone who may bring a previous employer's secrets.

04AI-drafted trade mark filings must be checkable line by line

In India and other jurisdictions that regulate AI use, verify every case citation and fact produced by AI, keep the records and declare truthfully whether AI was used; in Brazil, prepare evidence of business standing before filing so that a bulk office action does not lead to abandonment for missing the deadline.