Intellectual Property Newsletter by MeritsIP, August 22, 2025

Intellectual Property Newsletter by MeritsIP, August 22, 2025

August 22, 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.

11.73 Billion Yuan License Contract, 3.86 Million Yuan Team Bonus: How This Company Turns Coal into Gold with Patents

This news reports that in a Xinjiang coal – chemical project, a coal gasification device using Aerospace Engineering Company’s independently – developed technology is in stable operation. Relying on rocket and engine R & D advantages, the technology has reached the international leading level. The company holds 281 authorized patents, including 92 invention patents, and has 59 authorized patents abroad via the PCT route. It launched a “customized patent package” licensing model, improving patent transformation efficiency, with a 1.173 – billion – yuan license contract value and over 24 – billion – yuan signed projects. The company also has an incentive mechanism where bonus from each licensing project is split evenly between the invention and transformation teams. In 2023 and 2024, both teams got large bonuses, forming a virtuous cycle. High – value patent transformation needs advanced technology and an effective incentive mechanism.

Multiple Divisions of Optoelectronic Department Honored as Outstanding for 2024 Patent Examination Quality Assurance

Recently, multiple divisions of the Optoelectronic Technology Invention Examination Department (Optoelectronic Department) of the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) were recognized as outstanding divisions for patent examination quality assurance in 2024. The Measurement Second Division activated internal motivation, building a branch brand under Party – building guidance and establishing a comprehensive review quality assurance system. The Measurement Third Division strengthened the quality foundation by setting up an efficient quality assurance linkage system and a three – level quality inspection mechanism. The Analysis Second Division relied on its talent team, optimizing the training program and improving the quality assurance system. The Medical First Division protected technological innovation, establishing a “three – inspection, three – form” quality control mechanism in the face of medical – field challenges. In the future, the Optoelectronic Department will continue to enhance quality assurance through innovation and professional expertise to support the development of new productive forces.

Global Smart Kitchen Patent Ranking (TOP 30)

IPR Daily Chinese website and IP Hunter jointly released the Global Smart Kitchen Patent Ranking (TOP 30). The IPR Daily list project team used the PatSnap database, extracting data based on relevant keywords and classification numbers. The data covers smart kitchen patents applied and published globally from August 1, 2022, to July 31, 2025.

Smart kitchens integrate AI, IoT, and big data, enabling intelligent upgrades of traditional kitchen appliances. They support remote control, automation, and personalized services. The market has a complete product ecosystem. The global smart kitchen market, worth $3.25 billion in 2024, is expected to grow to $4.38 billion in 2025 and $49.24 billion in 2033, with a projected CAGR of 34.9% from 2025 to 2033.

In the ranking, Ningbo Fotile Kitchenware Co., Ltd. ranked first with 1,510 patent applications, followed by Gree Electric Appliances, Inc. of Zhuhai with 1,452, and Robam Appliances Co., Ltd. with 1,188. Traditional home – appliance enterprises like Haier and Midea had multiple affiliated subsidiaries on the list, indicating their comprehensive layout and continuous investment in the smart kitchen field.

Review and Determination of the Defense of Independent R & D in Technical Secret Infringement Cases

This is a technical secret infringement dispute. Chongqing Jianmou Co., Ltd. claimed that Ran Mou, Luo Moumou, Zhang Mou, and Changzhou Kangmou Automotive Air – Conditioning Co., Ltd. infringed its trade secrets of rotary vane automotive air – conditioning compressors. The first – instance court dismissed Jianmou’s claim, stating that Kangmou’s allegedly infringing technology was independently developed before the alleged infringement.

However, the Supreme People’s Court’s second – instance judgment found Kangmou’s evidence insufficient to prove independent R & D. Kangmou failed to provide original or electronic drawing documents from Xi’an University, couldn’t prove pre – employment production and sales of similar products, and its evidence had many flaws like incomplete R & D materials and late – submitted key evidence.

The second – instance court reversed the first – instance judgment, ordering the defendants to stop the infringement and jointly compensate Jianmou 1 million yuan. It also set standards for delayed performance fees. This case clarifies the court’s review principles for independent R & D claims in technical secret infringement cases.

Protection of Well-known Trademarks: Insights from the “Kuihua Zhiming” Case

This article delves into the enhanced protection of well – known trademarks via the “Kuihua Zhiming” trademark invalidation case. Well – known trademarks have broader protection, such as cross – category protection and no five – year limit for invalidation in cases of malicious registration. Heilongjiang Kuihua Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. sought to invalidate the “Kuihua Zhiming” trademark, claiming similarity to its well – known trademarks, imitation, prior trade – name right infringement, and the registrant’s malicious intent, supported by evidence. The “Kuihua Zhiming” trademark was registered in 2018 for Class 3 products, while the applicant’s cited trademark had a well – known record in Class 5 before the application. The ruling: the invalidation request under Articles 30 and 32 was rejected due to the five – year limit; however, the limit didn’t apply for malicious registration and high – reputation cited trademarks, violating Article 13(3). There was no deception evidence, so Article 10(1)(7) was not violated. The registration was considered an “improper means” act under Article 44(1). This case highlights well – known trademark protection in breaking the time limit for malicious registration and cross – category protection, showing the law’s stance against malicious registration.

Guangzhou Huangpu Court: Mixed Sales and Tie – in Sales Constitute Trademark Infringement and Unfair Competition

This case is a trademark infringement and unfair competition dispute between BY – HEALTH Co., Ltd. (plaintiff) and Guangzhou Qian’en Medical Technology Co., Ltd. and Guangzhou Shangdong Computer Technology Co., Ltd. (defendants). The defendants’ use of the “BY – HEALTH” trademark in prominent positions of online store sales link names, allowing customers to choose “Qian’enjian” products, exceeded the reasonable scope of trademark indicative use. Mixing “BY – HEALTH” and “Qian’enjian” products under the same link and using the “BY – HEALTH” logo without highlighting “Qian’enjian” information caused consumer confusion, constituting trademark infringement. Unauthorized promotion of BY – HEALTH’s products and use of its trademarks on the online store homepages led to public misperception of official authorization, constituting unfair competition. The first – instance court ordered the defendants to stop the infringement and compensate 300,000 yuan. The defendants’ appeal was rejected in the second – instance trial.

UPC Dynamic: German Occlutech Seeks Injunction Against Chinese Lepu Medical in Europe

The European Unified Patent Court (UPC) shows new judicial trends in temporary patent injunction hearings, significant for tech – intensive patent disputes. In a medical device case at the Düsseldorf Local Court, Judge Kupecz ruled on August 20 (German time) to involve a technical judge in the temporary injunction stage.

In July 2025, German firm Occlutech applied for a temporary injunction against Chinese Lepu Medical and its European subsidiaries over a medical device patent. Lepu Medical denied infringement and questioned the patent’s validity.

Despite non – mandatory technical judge participation in UPC’s temporary measures, the Düsseldorf Court introduced one due to complex technical issues and core disputes on patent validity, with both parties’ agreement.

This case heightens technical review requirements in UPC’s temporary injunction hearings. Early technical judge involvement helps the panel grasp dispute focuses, and the court is more cautious. It raises the bar for temporary injunction applications, as applicants must prove patent validity besides infringement possibility. This practice may become a norm in medical devices, chips, semiconductors, and new energy. Market players face challenges and get compliance guidance, highlighting the need for better patent strategies and pre – application validity assessments.

Overseas News | New Rule of USPTO: Common Knowledge No Longer Applicable to IPR Requests

On July 31, 2025, the USPTO issued a memorandum clarifying IPR request requirements. Petitioners must specify the location of each claim element in prior – art patents or publications. Previously, the PTAB allowed using general knowledge like AAPA to supplement missing elements, but the new guidance prohibits this. If an IPR petition relies on general knowledge to fill gaps, the PTAB will reject it. The memo clarifies that general knowledge can still support technology – combination motivation or prove what an ordinary skilled person would know, yet Section 104(b)(4) may be stricter than Section 311(b). The Federal Circuit’s ruling in Shockwave Medical v. Cardiovascular Systems, just weeks before the memo, shows a conflict between administrative rules and judicial interpretations. The new requirements apply to IPR requests filed on or after September 1, 2025. Practitioners should ensure clear mapping of claim elements to prior – art materials.

Korea Intellectual Property Office Revises Trademark Law and Design Protection Law

On July 22, 2025, the Korea Intellectual Property Office (KIPO) announced the implementation of revised Trademark Law and Design Protection Law. For intentional infringement, the infringer will face up to 5 – fold damage compensation, up from 3 – fold. The revision aims to combat malicious infringement and strengthen IP protection, as the number of online counterfeit goods in South Korea rose from 137,382 in 2020 to 272,948 in 2024. Only China and South Korea have a 5 – fold punitive compensation for trademark and design infringement. After similar provisions in the Patent Law and Anti – Unfair Competition Law in 2024, South Korea has established a high – standard punitive compensation system for intentional IP infringement (excluding copyright). KIPO said the new bill will deter infringement and ensure compensation for damaged enterprises, and will improve the mechanism for identifying intentional infringement.

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