Intellectual Property Newsletter by MeritsIP, August 25, 2025

Intellectual Property Newsletter by MeritsIP, August 25, 2025

August 25, 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.

Invention Patent Authorization Cycle Shortened to 3 Months: Shanghai’s Patent Pre – examination Boosts Enterprise Innovation

On August 21st during the “Government Open Month” event, reporters and over 30 public representatives visited the Shanghai Intellectual Property Protection Center. From January to July this year, the center received 6947 pre – examination cases, accepted 6449, and 4911 passed. Over 10,000 patent applications entered the CNIPA’s fast – track review after passing pre – examination, with the average invention patent authorization cycle reduced from 2 – 3 years to 3 months. Representatives learned about Shanghai’s IP initiatives in the IP publicity hall, visited functional areas and learned key work. At the symposium, center staff introduced functions, service scopes, pre – examination processes and shared typical cases. A humanoid robot company completed pre – examination filing in 7 days via “One – Stop Online Service” and could get invention patents authorized in as fast as one month. Shanghai Tongyu Automotive Technology Co., Ltd. had 221 patent applications by July, and the pre – examination service shortened their average authorization cycle to 3 – 6 months, protecting R & D results and enhancing innovation enthusiasm.

Domestic Invention Patents Worth 5 Points Each, Foreign Invention Patents Worth 10 Points Each | Full Text of the “Administrative Measures for the Identification of Intellectual Property – Strong Enterprises in Hangzhou” Released!

The Hangzhou Market Supervision and Administration Bureau has released the “Administrative Measures for the Identification of Intellectual Property – Strong Enterprises in Hangzhou”, effective from September 15, 2025. To be recognized, a company must have strong innovation capabilities, with last year’s R & D investment at least 5% of total operating income or no less than 5 million yuan. The cumulative effective patents (trademarks) should be worth at least 30 points, and those authorized in the past three years at least 25 points, including at least 3 domestic or foreign invention patents. Domestic invention patents are worth 5 points each, foreign ones 10 points each. There are bonus points for certain achievements. Enterprises should have significant utilization benefits, strong protection awareness, and no malicious behaviors. The recognition is valid for 3 years and subject to re – evaluation every three years.

UPC Court Ruling | Dyson Fails to Obtain Temporary Injunction from UPC Against New Dreame Products

On August 14, 2025, the Hamburg Local Division of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) ruled in the Dyson v. Dreame case (No. UPC_CFI_387/2025). Filed on May 2, with an oral hearing on July 24, the decision showed a “generational divide.” The old – style Dreame Airstyle and Pocket likely infringed patent EP 3 119 235 (hand – held hair styling device attachments), so the injunction took effect immediately. However, the new – style Airstyle Pro and Pocket Neo were outside the patent claims, and the application was rejected.

Notably, the court extended the injunction to non – UPC member Spain, using German company Eurep GmbH as an “anchor point” and citing the EU Court’s BSH Hausgeräte case. The ruling impacts product generations, geography, and penalties, and has broader effects like upgrading the European authorized representative’s status. The UPC is raising review thresholds. Enterprises should strengthen patent bases, optimize compliance, and manage product generations precisely for European market competitiveness.

New Acceptance on the Science and Technology Innovation Board! Lianxun Instrument Aims for IPO Amid US Firm Aehr’s Patent Lawsuits

On August 15, the Shanghai Stock Exchange officially accepted the IPO application of Suzhou Lianxun Instrument Co., Ltd. on the Science and Technology Innovation Board. The company plans to raise about 1.954 billion yuan for high – end testing equipment R & D and industrialization projects. As of August 2025, it has obtained 328 patents.

However, the prospectus shows that Lianxun Instrument is facing two patent lawsuits from US – based Aehr. In September 2024, Aehr sued Lianxun in the Suzhou Intermediate People’s Court, claiming infringement of two Chinese – applied patents and demanding compensation. Lianxun applied to the CNIPA to declare the involved patents invalid, and the CNIPA declared parts of both patents invalid. The cases are still under trial. Lianxun said that even if found infringing, it can adjust equipment through design changes without major negative impacts on its operation. The outcome of this patent dispute will affect the market layout and deserves continuous attention.

UPC Dynamics: German Firm Seeks to Block Lepu Medical in Europe

The European Unified Patent Court (UPC) shows new judicial trends in temporary patent injunction hearings. In a medical device patent dispute 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 company Lepu Medical and its European subsidiaries over a medical device patent. Lepu Medical denied infringement and challenged the patent’s validity.

Despite non – mandatory technical judge participation in the UPC’s temporary measures, the Düsseldorf Court introduced one due to complex technical issues and patent validity disputes. Early technical judge involvement helps the court accurately understand the technical focus and be more cautious.

This case raises the review standard for temporary injunction applications. It challenges market players but also offers compliance guidance. Companies should optimize patent layout strategies and strengthen pre – application validity evaluation. Patent legal stability will be key in market competition.

Analyzing Well-known Trademark Protection through the “Kuihua Zhiming” Case

This article uses the “Kuihua Zhiming” trademark invalidation case to illustrate the enhanced protection of well-known trademarks. Well-known trademarks have broader protection scopes and fewer time limitations for invalidation compared to ordinary trademarks. In 2024, Heilongjiang Kuihua Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. requested the invalidation of the “Kuihua Zhiming” trademark, citing similarities with its well-known trademarks, imitation, infringement of prior business name rights, and the registrant’s malicious behavior, providing evidence like business information. The disputed trademark was registered in 2018 for Class 3 products, and the applicant’s cited trademarks were approved earlier, with one recognized as well-known in 2007. The registrant had 95 trademarks, many imitating others. Judged by the 2013 and 2019 Trademark Laws, the registration of the disputed trademark violated relevant articles due to imitation and malicious behavior. The case shows two key aspects of well-known trademark protection: no five-year time limit for invalidating maliciously registered trademarks and cross-class protection, protecting the rights of the well-known trademark owner and demonstrating China’s stance on safeguarding well-known brands and market order.

Upgrade of Huainan Beef Soup: Collective Trademark Approved

Recently, the collective trademark (graphic) of “Huainan Beef Soup” submitted by the Huainan Beef Soup Industry Development Association was approved. Beef soup is a key industry in Huainan, worth over 32 billion yuan with 235 enterprises by the end of 2024. To build it into a well – known brand, Huainan established a development system and applied for the trademark. The approval is significant for industry development and structure upgrading. The Huainan Market Supervision and Administration Bureau will promote logo use standardization, enhance competitiveness and influence, and strengthen food safety supervision. For locals, beef soup is both a daily food and an economic driver. The approval offers legal support for brand building. In the long run, Huainan should combine tradition with modern technology, strengthen support, innovation and cultural empowerment, and integrate the three industries to make it a world – famous cuisine.

Trademark Class: What’s the Difference Between Trademark Assignment and Transmission?

This article explains the differences between trademark assignment and transmission. Trademark assignment is a contract – based transfer of a registered or pending trademark from the owner to another party as per the owner’s will, also known as contract assignment. The transfer of trademark rights doesn’t occur upon signing the contract. It takes effect only after submitting a transfer application to the Trademark Office of the CNIPA, getting approval and announcement.

Trademark transmission is a way to obtain trademark rights through inheritance, estate distribution, and succession. It mainly occurs when the original trademark owner dies or terminates, and the rights are passed on to the inheriting entity. Situations include inheritance by heirs, new – formed enterprises after corporate changes, trademark disposal by liquidation groups, forced transfer based on legal documents, etc. When trademark rights are transferred due to non – assignment reasons, the recipient should apply to the Trademark Office with relevant certificates or legal documents.

Shenzhen Intellectual Property Protection Center Issues Response Guide on Alleged Illegal Trademark Agency by USPTO

Recently, the Shenzhen Intellectual Property Protection Center detected an alleged illegal agency case of US trademark applications. On Feb. 24, 2025, the USPTO accused Shenzhen Seller Growth Network Tech. Co., Ltd. and two affiliated companies of violating US trademark law through improper means like forging signatures and providing false lawyer info. The USPTO plans to revoke the registration of 41,741 relevant trademarks applied from 2010 – 2023, setting a March 26, 2025 deadline for relevant parties to provide written evidence and responses.

Affected enterprises can check the list, assess risks, and take timely measures, such as re – entrusting qualified agencies, redesigning trademarks, and referring to previous reports and guides from the Shenzhen Protection Center.

Suggestions for US trademark applications involve carefully selecting agencies, verifying US lawyers’ identities, choosing application categories reasonably, and ensuring use evidence compliance. Enterprises can contact the Shenzhen Protection Center for more guidance.

“Thousand Enterprises, Hundred Cities” Trademark Brand Value Enhancement Action: Second – Batch Application and First – Batch Evaluation

Recently, the CNIPA launched the second – batch application and first – batch evaluation for the “Thousand Enterprises, Hundred Cities” Trademark Brand Value Enhancement Action. Eligible applicants for the second – batch action, including enterprises, regional trademark brand entities, and trademark brand guidance stations, must meet the Action Plan’s conditions. Specialized and sophisticated SMEs get priority, while first – batch participants and geographical indication entities are ineligible.

The second – batch application has three steps: entity application organized by provincial administrations, provincial recommendation after review, and CNIPA confirmation via re – review and publicity.

For the first – batch evaluation, provincial administrations should organize first – batch participants to report annual construction, summarize action details, and recommend typical cases. The CNIPA will evaluate based on the materials and promote the action.

Provincial administrations must submit materials by September 15. The action isn’t a demonstration or assessment, and localities should ensure voluntariness and avoid overburdening. They should also offer guidance and service to create trademark brand value – enhancement examples.

Southeast Asian Trademark Issue Warning: A Guide to Preventing Brand Hijacking

As Chinese brands expand into Southeast Asia, they face trademark protection challenges due to diverse legal frameworks and IP enforcement. This guide analyzes challenges and strategies in Indonesia, Thailand, Vietnam, the Philippines, and Cambodia. Common hijacking tactics include large – scale, local modification, and cross – category registration. Companies are advised to adopt comprehensive registration, partner with local distributors, and conduct regular monitoring. Different countries have unique rights – protection characteristics. Regionally, proactive protection involves a unified plan and cultural sensitivity. Crisis management requires a rapid response, cost – benefit assessment, and effective PR. Comprehensive and proactive trademark protection is crucial for companies expanding in Southeast Asia to safeguard brand assets and avoid legal disputes.

[Understand at a Glance]: Zimbabwe’s Trademark Opposition System

This article comprehensively analyzes Zimbabwe’s trademark opposition system, a core part of its intellectual property protection framework. Administered by the Zimbabwe Intellectual Property Office (ZIMIPO), the system aims to resolve trademark rights conflicts and ensure fair market competition. Key points include the accepting authority (ZIMIPO), the timing of opposition (60 days after publication), the grounds for opposition (based on the 2001 Trademark Act), the procedure (five – stage process), and the duration (24 – 36 months, longer with appeals). The system has problems like low administrative efficiency and high evidence requirements. International companies are advised to register early, use local agents, and preserve evidence. It is expected to improve with deeper regional cooperation.

[One Article to Understand] Kenya’s Trademark Opposition System

This article comprehensively introduces Kenya’s trademark opposition system, including the accepting authority, timing, application basis, process, and cycle. The Kenya Intellectual Property Office (KEIPO) under the Kenya Industrial and Commercial Development Corporation is the sole authority for trademark affairs, handling reviews, announcements, and opposition cases. Foreign businesses must use local agents, while local ones have the option of self – representation or hiring professionals.

The right to oppose a trademark must be exercised within three months after the trademark’s publication in the official gazette, based on the grounds in the Trademarks Act of 1964 (2002 Revised Edition). The opposition process has five stages, and usually takes 18 – 30 months, which can be extended.

Despite ensuring trademark right certainty through procedural justice, the system faces challenges like insufficient administrative resources and delayed judicial relief. International businesses are advised to plan ahead, use local agents, and preserve trademark – use evidence. With Kenya’s participation in the Madrid Protocol and African regional IP integration, the system is expected to be more efficient and standardized.

USPTO: Third – Party Can Challenge Trademark Applications or Registrations with Invalid Use Evidence from E – commerce Sites

Some agencies set up “use evidence farms” (e – commerce websites) to generate invalid use evidence for trademark applications. They apply for trademarks on standard consumer goods, create fake e – commerce sites with product listings and added trademark images, but the evidence doesn’t prove real trademark use in normal trade.

USPTO examiners usually reject invalid evidence, yet some trademarks with such evidence may still get registered. Tens of thousands of registrations might rely on this invalid evidence, hampering legitimate applicants.

The “use evidence farms” have features like a “USA” – only address on the “Contact Us” page, insufficient phone numbers, blank – page links, lack of product categorization, and inconsistent product descriptions.

If invalid samples from these farms are found, they can be used to oppose an application or registration. Options include submitting an objection letter for pending applications, filing a petition through the TTAB to cancel a registration or oppose a published trademark, and submitting a petition for non – used trademarks. Evidence must be provided, and examples are on the USPTO’s Trademark Modernization Act webpage.

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