Intellectual Property Newsletter by MeritsIP, August 15, 2025

Intellectual Property Newsletter by MeritsIP, August 15, 2025

August 15, 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.

How to Regulate Imitation of Clothing Styles Using the Anti – Unfair Competition Law?

The issue of clothing imitation can be regulated by the general clause of the Anti – Unfair Competition Law, covering situations not addressed by other IP laws. In the competitive fashion market, style imitation is common due to its easy – to – imitate nature, high added value, and short cycles, making the general clause a major rights – safeguarding tool.

Applying the general clause is justified as existing IP laws can’t protect clothing styles well, and imitation isn’t covered by specific unfair competition acts in the law. When courts use it, they examine four conditions: the style has a legitimate competitive interest, there’s a competitive relationship between parties, the plaintiff suffers significant damage, and the defendant violates principles like good faith.

The court also conducts an interest – balance, considering impacts on operators, consumers, and market competition. Protecting clothing styles via the general clause is reasonable, and courts should clarify application conditions to boost the clothing industry.

High’s Claim of Copyright Infringement Rejected by Court

Gao sued a Shenzhen – based tech company for copyright infringement of his artworks. However, the Longhua District People’s Court of Shenzhen rejected all his claims due to insufficient evidence of copyright ownership. Gao claimed the company’s online store sold stickers with his “Santa Claus with gifts” image without permission. He presented a copyright registration certificate, yet his statements on creation time were inconsistent. The “Copyright AI Intelligent Adjudication” system showed similar images online earlier than his claimed creation time. Also, he was 14 in 2011 and registered the copyright in 2024, raising suspicion. Gao tried to withdraw the lawsuit during the trial, but it was denied because of public – interest and others’ rights. He appealed, and the Shenzhen Intermediate People’s Court upheld the original judgment. The judge noted that copyright registration is voluntary and only offers preliminary evidence, and comprehensive reviews are needed in unclear cases. The AI system can help identify image ownership and prevent false lawsuits.

Practice Three Questions: How to Seek Alternative Dispute Resolution Solutions from the World Intellectual Property Organization for Standard Essential Patent Disputes?

This article focuses on the AMC FRAND dispute – resolution rules, analyzing the practice and features of the World Intellectual Property Organization’s (WIPO) alternative dispute – resolution (ADR) mechanism for standard essential patent (SEP) disputes. It answers three questions: 1. Why Choose WIPO ADR Mechanism for SEP Disputes? WIPO ADR has advantages over traditional litigation, offering flexibility, confidentiality, high – efficiency, and global enforceability of arbitration awards. 2. How to Use WIPO ADR Mechanism for SEP Disputes? WIPO AMC provides customized ADR programs for specific sectors. It offers standard contract clauses and relevant tools. The main ADR procedures include mediation, arbitration, and expert determination. 3. What’s the Latest Progress of WIPO ADR Mechanism in Resolving SEP Disputes? In 2024, WIPO AMC received 858 intellectual – property – related cases, a 25% increase from 2023. The number of mediation requests for FRAND – related disputes has increased. WIPO ADR is becoming a suitable tool for SEP disputes, especially with the growing importance of SEP FRAND licensing in digital transformation.

Procurement Eligibility Suspended: East China Pharmaceutical’s Indobufen Patent Sparks Multi – Party Tussle

Recently, Shanghai Sunshine Pharmaceutical Procurement Network suspended the procurement eligibility for some drugs. Based on a Hangzhou Intermediate People’s Court civil judgment, the eligibility for two specifications of Indobufen tablets from Shandong Modern Pharmaceutical Technology Co., Ltd. was suspended due to an invention patent infringement dispute (Case 2024 Zhe 01 Zhi Min Chu 72). The plaintiff is Hangzhou Zhongmei Huadong Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., and the defendants include Fuo Pharmaceutical Technology (Huzhou) Co., Ltd. and Zhejiang Saimo Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.

Indobufen tablets, a new anti – platelet drug, are for aspirin – intolerant patients. Its compound and indication patents have expired, but Zhongmei Huadong got the authorization of the core patent “A Crystal Form D of Indobufen and Its Preparation Method” in 2023, with protection until 2040.

In 2024, Zhongmei Huadong accused 15 enterprises of patent infringement by submitting administrative adjudication applications. The Hangzhou Intellectual Property Bureau confirmed infringement in two decisions, leading to the suspension of procurement eligibility by the Shanghai Pharmaceutical Centralized Bidding and Procurement Management Office. Some accused enterprises sued the bureau, and other applications are under review. Also, over 20 requests for patent invalidation were made against Zhongmei Huadong’s core patent. The CNIPA has upheld the patent’s validity in 5 cases, and the rest are pending or withdrawn.

Method Claim Technical Feature Division

This case is a dispute over the infringement of an invention patent between Shenzhen Jimei Technology Co., Ltd. and Hefei Dimei Technology Co., Ltd. Shenzhen Jimei alleged that Hefei Dimei’s router product infringed its patent for a PPPoE dial – up username and password error prompt method. The core issue is the division of technical features of the method claim and the comparison between the accused product’s technical solution and the patented one.

The court stated that proper division of technical features in patent claims is fundamental for infringement comparison. For method claims, the relationship and sequence of steps must be considered. The technical solution of claim 1 of the involved patent can be divided into four technical features, while the identification opinion’s division of 15 technical features was improper as it split the judgment processes.

After comparison, the accused product’s technical solution shares the same technical features I and II with the patented one. Technical feature III should be analyzed with feature IV. Feature IV in the accused product’s solution does not have the same or equivalent technical features as the patented one.

In summary, the accused product’s technical solution is not within the protection scope of claim 1 of the involved patent. The court reversed the first – instance judgment and dismissed Shenzhen Jimei’s claims.

An Overview of the U.S. Court System: Jurisdictional Boundaries between State and Federal Courts and Exclusive Jurisdiction over Intellectual Property Cases

This article analyzes the U.S. court system, focusing on jurisdictional boundaries between state and federal courts and exclusive federal jurisdiction over IP cases. The U.S. has a “dual – binary” system with independent federal and state court systems. The federal court system, established by the U.S. Constitution, has a three – tiered structure and limited jurisdiction. State court systems vary but generally have three levels and general jurisdiction. Jurisdictional boundaries are divided by three principles. In IP cases, patent cases are under exclusive federal jurisdiction, while copyright and trademark cases are mainly federal but state courts can handle some disputes. Federal jurisdiction has advantages. Lawyers need proper court – selection strategies for U.S. IP cases, and understanding the system is vital for IP protection.

Trademark | Nanjing Intermediate People’s Court: Zhangyue Wins! The Crucial Role of Well-Known Trademark Recognition in Infringement Litigation

This news reports a trademark infringement case where Zhangyue Technology sued Xiamen Xiang’an Library and Nanjing Qixuan Huanxiang Network Technology. Firstly, determining the well – known status of Zhangyue’s “Zhangyue” trademark was crucial as Zhangyue asked the court to ban the defendants’ use of their registered trademarks. Secondly, Zhangyue’s “Zhangyue” trademark was recognized as well – known. Since 2008, Zhangyue had continuously used it in business, with high APP download volumes, many registered users, heavy promotion investment, and numerous awards. Thirdly, the defendants’ actions were trademark infringement. Their use of “Zhangyue Xiangtu” and “Tupian” was trademark – related, similar to Zhangyue’s trademark as they contained “Zhangyue” and were used in the same service category. Their actions damaged Zhangyue’s rights and showed bad faith. The court ruled that Xiamen Xiang’an Library should stop the infringement, compensate Zhangyue, and Nanjing Qixuan Huanxiang Network Technology should bear joint liability for part of the compensation.

Analysis of the Review Rules for Non-Common Language Trademark Registration

This article analyzes non-common language trademark registration review rules via cases. China generally reviews such trademarks as graphic elements, also considering meanings and pronunciations based on public recognition.

Trademarks may be rejected or invalidated for several reasons: similarity to prior trademarks (e.g., “くまモン”, “АБКИГРА”, “LH及图”); lack of distinctiveness (e.g., “ベストツール”, Korean “名品”); misleading consumers (e.g., “江陵市”, “水素の家”); and negative social impact (trademarks with certain characters that may hurt religious feelings). The change in reviewing “水素” – containing trademarks reflects a stricter system.

In conclusion, the Trademark Office examines original meanings of non – common language trademarks. Enterprises should be cautious when applying, considering usage needs and text content.

Another USPTO AI-assisted examination tool ready for prime time

In September 2022, USPTO utility patent examiners began using the Similarity Search tool (SimSearch), an AI – assisted prior art search feature. It helps examiners find similar documents to the application under review, and examiners can decide whether to use the results.

SimSearch is meant to supplement other search tools, not replace them. It’s accessible via the USPTO’s internal Patents End – to – End (PE2E) Search, a web – based, modern cloud – platform tool. It generates an AI search query from the application text and presents ranked results. When the application text is amended, it can quickly update the results. Also, it enables examiners to refine results by highlighting selected application information for easier identification of relevant prior art and similar documents.

Source: True

Overseas News | The Eleventh Edition of the “Case Law of the Boards of Appeal of the EPO” Released

The Eleventh Edition of the “Case Law of the Boards of Appeal of the EPO” was released in July 2025. In nearly 50 years since the first decision, over 67,000 cases have been handled and more than 45,000 decisions made, influencing European patent law. This new edition contains about 9,000 key decisions up to the end of 2024 and features temporary chapter revisions for quick understanding of edition differences. Changes involve case – law after Enlarged Board decisions and legal principles from the 2020 – revised Rules of Procedure. The Boards of Appeal monthly post decision summaries on the EPO website. The compilation is electronic (HTML and PDF), with only the HTML version currently on the official site and the PDF to follow. Its table of contents covers patentability, application procedures, and institutional matters.

Overseas News | New UPC Rule: Window for Amending Patent Counterclaims Closed, Mannheim Court Rejects Belated Invalidity Evidence

In a 2025 patent case at the Mannheim Local Court, the Unified Patent Court (UPC) in Europe took a strict stance on amending patent revocation counterclaims. Sunstar sued CeraCon for infringement, and CeraCon counterclaimed for patent revocation, submitting prior – art citations. Two months later, CeraCon tried to add a newly – discovered prior – art document. However, the court rejected this amendment request. The Rules of Procedure (RoP) Article 263 applies to counterclaims, banning late introduction of new prior art or invalidity grounds. The court stressed that all grounds and documents must be in the initial counterclaim as per RoP Article 25. The counter – defendant’s need for certainty in response preparation prevails over the counter – claimant’s later argument introduction. This ruling indicates the UPC’s strict proceduralist stance, different from some national courts, and reminds litigants to fully prepare when filing patent revocation counterclaims.

Latest Notice: USPTO Eliminates Accelerated Examination for Design Applications

On August 13 local time, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) announced that it suspended the accelerated examination process for design patent applications on April 17, 2025, and issued a final rule on August 14, 2025, to completely abolish this mechanism. The move aims to combat fraudulent applications, shorten review backlogs, and reduce the inventory of pending design patent applications. In recent years, requests for accelerated design examination surged by 560% mainly due to many fraudulent applications. This measure also helps the USPTO address micro – entity certification violations and strengthen the intellectual property system’s risk – prevention ability. Applicants can still advance applications through a special review process. If they submit a petition to make special with sufficient evidence and fees, the Accelerated Examination program still applies.

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