Intellectual Property Newsletter by MeritsIP, August 13, 2025

Intellectual Property Newsletter by MeritsIP, August 13, 2025

August 13, 2025 global, meritsip 0 Comments

Editor’s Note: Intellectual Property Highlights and Strategies for Innovation

Welcome to the MeritsIP Newsletter. We delve into critical updates in the intellectual property landscape, providing insights and strategies to help you navigate the ever-evolving world of patents, trademarks, and copyrights. Read on to stay informed and ahead in the game of innovation.

Public Call for Applications! Experts for the Third Batch of Kunming Intellectual Property Expert Database (Experts in the Sub – database for Overseas Dispute Response)

The Kunming Market Supervision and Administration Bureau is publicly recruiting experts for the third – batch of the Kunming Intellectual Property Expert Database, especially for the overseas dispute response sub – database. The recruitment, open to overseas IP professionals and technical experts from multiple institutions, ends on August 18, 2025 (by the receipt date of electronic documents).

Candidates must have at least five – year IP – related experience, be familiar with domestic and international IP systems, and have overseas IP layout and litigation experience. Preference will be given to those with experience in guiding responses in South and Southeast Asian countries.

Applications can be made via unit, organizational, or individual self – recommendation. Applicants need to submit paper and electronic forms and relevant materials. The recruitment involves application submission, expert review, social publicity, and result announcement.

Selected experts will offer guidance on overseas IP disputes, conduct research, give legal and technical advice, participate in publicity and training, and serve SMEs.

Notice on Releasing the Classification and Grading Evaluation Specification for Intellectual Property Service Institutions in Guangzhou Development Zone

Recently, the Capital Intellectual Property Service Industry Association issued a notice on the “Classification and Grading Evaluation Specification for Intellectual Property Service Institutions in Guangzhou Development Zone”. The specification shows that the indicators for intellectual property agency services include the allocation of practicing personnel, authorization rate, prioritized examination, rejection rate, and success rate of invalidation and re – examination.

To standardize the development of intellectual property service institutions in the zone, conduct scientific classification and grading evaluation, promote the standardization of the intellectual property service industry, and attract high – quality service institutions, the Guangzhou Development Zone Intellectual Property Association and the Capital Intellectual Property Service Industry Association jointly compiled the group standard. This standard is now officially released to offer a reference for the public to choose high – quality intellectual property services.

Fined 100,000 yuan! A patent agency in Jiangsu was warned and fined for handling a large number of abnormal patent applications

Recently, the Jiangsu Provincial Intellectual Property Administration issued a penalty notice. A local intellectual property agency handled many abnormal patent applications recognized by the CNIPA, seriously disrupting the patent work order. This violated relevant regulations, and the agency was warned and fined 100,000 yuan. Previously, the Guangdong Provincial Administration for Market Regulation punished a firm in Maoming for handling abnormal patent applications. 2,525 applications were recognized as abnormal by the CNIPA, involving multiple provinces. The firm was ordered to correct immediately, and was given a warning and an 80,000 – yuan fine.

21 Tips for Private Enterprises in Intellectual Property Protection

The Sichuan Higher People’s Court, the Sichuan Federation of Industry and Commerce, and the Chengdu Intermediate People’s Court recently issued “100 Legal Risk Warnings for Private Enterprises in Optimizing the Rule – of – Law Business Environment”, which includes 21 tips in the aspect of intellectual property protection. These tips cover various areas such as R & D, patent and trademark application, trade – secret protection, and copyright management. For example, conduct research before product R & D, protect R & D process data, and apply for patents or protect as trade secrets. Other important points include clarifying ownership in different scenarios, registering trademarks and copyrights in time, and establishing a multi – level IP protection system.

Guangzhou IP Court Reverses Verdict in “The Lord of the Realms” vs. “Three Kingdoms: Strategic Edition” Case, Remands for Retrial

This is an appeal case by Hangzhou NetEase Leihuo against Guangzhou Janyue over copyright infringement and unfair competition. The court ruled that: copyright law protects original expressions, not ideas, and the game rules and gameplay designs of “The Lord of the Realms” are ideas and system operation methods, not copyrightable works. The first – instance wrongly recognized the game as “other intellectual achievements” without full consideration. To determine unfair competition, a systematic review is needed. Also, since “Three Kingdoms: Strategic Edition” has been unchanged since 2019 and “The Lord of the Realms” has been updated, NetEase Leihuo should use the pre – September 20, 2019 version for comparison, but the first – instance used the 2020 version, leading to a comparison error. Thus, the second – instance court reversed the first – instance judgment and remanded the case for retrial.

“Tongguan Roujiamo” Invalidity Declaration Second-Instance Reversed Judgment

On July 11, 2025, the Beijing Higher People’s Court reversed the first – instance judgment in the “Tongguan Roujiamo” trademark invalidity declaration case, dismissing the original plaintiff’s claim. In 2023, Wang filed an invalidity declaration against the collective trademark of the Tongguan Roujiamo Association. The CNIPA ruled to maintain the registration. In 2024, the Beijing Intellectual Property Court’s first – instance judgment revoked the original ruling due to procedural and substantial flaws. But in 2025, the Beijing Higher People’s Court’s second – instance judgment held that the disputed trademark had been registered for over five years. Requesting invalidity under absolute clauses to examine geographical indication provisions after the five – year limit violated the Trademark Law’s legislative intent. Also, the registration of the disputed trademark didn’t violate relevant articles of the 2013 Trademark Law, so the first – instance judgment was reversed.

Korea Releases Report on the Importance of Start – up Financing and Patents/Trademarks

On July 21, 2025, the Korea Intellectual Property Office, the Korea National Intellectual Property Commission, and the Korea Development Institute jointly issued a report. It empirically analyzed the impact of intellectual property activities on corporate financing and exit possibility based on data of 2,615 start – ups from 1999 to 2025. Results show that start – ups applying for patents or trademarks in advance are more likely to obtain financing, with the probability increasing at different development stages. Applying for both in the later stage can boost the financing possibility up to 9 times, and over 20 applications can soar the success rate to 17.1 times. Start – ups with early intellectual property layout are more likely to exit successfully, and over 20 domestic and foreign applications can make the exit possibility reach up to 5.9 times. KIPO said intellectual property is an important indicator for investors. The Korean government will expand support policies for start – ups.

Overseas News | The US Department of Commerce Plans to Impose a Patent Tax, Which May Significantly Impact Innovation and Patent Strategies

On July 28, 2025, the Wall Street Journal reported that the US Department of Commerce is considering a 1% – 5% tax on granted patents, on top of existing maintenance fees. The US patent system, a core commercial right, offers inventors 20 – year exclusive rights in exchange for full disclosure. However, the proposed tax raises concerns. Patent value is hard to quantify, many patents have no economic value, it may discourage applications in cash – strapped industries like biotech, and suppress innovation as companies may use trade – secret protection. It could also have a negative economic impact like in Europe. The proposal is under review, and stakeholders should monitor it as taxing patent “value” may harm innovation and the US economy, potentially changing the cost – benefit analysis of the US patent system.

Overseas News | A Judge in Pennsylvania, US, Issues New Rules to Rectify the Chaos of “Schedule A Litigation”

Recently, Judge Nicholas Ranjan of the US District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania issued the “‘Schedule A’ Case Standing Order”. Though not publicly available on his official website or regular web channels, it appeared in a 2025 copyright lawsuit. It’s speculated that he may apply it to all “Schedule A Litigation” cases he handles. The order admits the need to fight counterfeits and provide remedies for rights – holders but notes that “Schedule A Litigation” has deviated from normal procedures. It introduces rules including lawsuit consolidation, strict jurisdiction criteria, proper service procedures, cautious granting of ex parte TROs, non – sealing of litigation documents, and disclosure of related cases. These rules aim to curb abuse and bring “Schedule A Litigation” back to the normal IP litigation track.

[Professional Knowledge] Saudi Arabia’s Patent Invalidation System

This article elaborates on Saudi Arabia’s patent invalidation system, governed by the GCC Patent Law and Saudi national regulations. It has a dual – system legal framework: GCC patents, authorized by the GCC Patent Office, are valid in 6 member states, while Saudi national patents, authorized by the SAIP, are valid only in Saudi Arabia. Different invalidation procedures apply to each type.

The main laws include the GCC Patent Law, Saudi Patent Law and its implementing regulations, and the Anti – Litigation Abuse Law. The “Objection and Appeal Committee” of the GCC Patent Office handles GCC patent invalidation, with uniformly effective decisions in all GCC member states. For Saudi national patents, there are administrative and judicial procedures.

Invalidation reasons involve substantial defects, procedural defects, and ownership issues. The administrative procedure requires submitting an Arabic request with evidence and paying a fee, followed by the patentee’s response, review, and a decision within 1 – 2 years (SAIP) or 1.5 – 3 years (GCC). The judicial procedure, applicable in some cases, has a 2 – 4 – year cycle.

Key features are the mandatory use of Arabic, local representation for foreign parties, patent modification rights for patentees, an accelerated SAIP procedure, and restrictions on malicious invalidation. There is an appeal mechanism for both administrative decisions and court judgments. Practical suggestions include choosing the SAIP administrative procedure, preparing pre – priority Arabic documents as evidence, and conducting risk prevention.

Polish Patent Invalidation System

This article details Poland’s patent invalidation system regulated by relevant laws. The administrative revocation procedure is handled by the Polish Patent Office (UPRP), which is fast and low – cost and can be requested anytime after patent authorization. Ordinary courts deal with invalidation requests in patent infringement litigations or independent invalidation lawsuits, with complex procedures and long durations.

Invalidation reasons include non – patentability, lack of novelty, etc. The UPRP administrative revocation involves request submission, the patentee’s response, and a decision within 6 – 12 months. Court litigation includes lawsuit filing, evidence exchange, and a trial with possible appeals. There’s an opposition procedure for utility models within 6 months after authorization.

Invalidation has retroactive effect, and partial invalidation only deletes invalid claims. Appeals can be made against UPRP decisions and court judgments. Practical points involve language, local agency requirements, etc. Poland’s system is compatible with the EU framework, with national procedures still dominant. The administrative revocation takes 6 – 18 months, and court litigation takes 1 – 3 years, emphasizing procedural efficiency and sufficient evidence.

About Us

MeritsIP: Your Global Intellectual Property Partner

At MeritsIP, we provide comprehensive IP services in biomedicine, medical devices, manufacturing, semiconductors, and AI. We support 200+ top clients globally with strategic, high-quality IP services.

MeritsIP

MeritsIP