Intellectual Property Newsletter by MeritsIP, September 01, 2025

September 1, 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.

Illegal Acquisition of Technical Information Valued at Over 300 Million Yuan! 14 “Insiders” Infringing Huawei Hisilicon’s Trade Secrets Sentenced

Recently, the first – instance judgment of Zunpai Communication Technology (Nanjing) Co., Ltd.’s infringement on Shenzhen Hisilicon Semiconductor Co., Ltd.’s chip technology trade secrets has come into effect. Hisilicon, a Huawei subsidiary, invested heavily in long – term independent R & D of Wi – Fi chips since 2011.

Zunpai was founded in 2021 by Zhang, a former Hisilicon department head. He recruited 7 Hisilicon employees to obtain technical information improperly for chip R & D.

On April 10, 2024, 14 people including Zhang were prosecuted for trade – secret infringement. The procuratorial team hired experts and accurately distinguished defendants’ roles. In court, defendants pleaded guilty.

On July 28, 2025, all 14 defendants were convicted. Zhang got 6 – year imprisonment and a 3 – million – yuan fine, others different sentences and fines. The first – instance judgment is effective with no appeal. The Supreme People’s Procuratorate highlights the significance of trade – secret protection and the legal system for innovation.

Shen Changyu: Implementation of Examinations for Utility Models Lacking Inventiveness and Distinctive Design Patents

Recently, the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) released its 2024 Annual Report. CNIPA Director Shen Changyu said the quality and efficiency of intellectual property examinations have been continuously enhanced. The average examination cycle for invention patents has been cut to 15.5 months, and that for trademark registrations has been stable at 4 months, both at the fastest international level. The accuracy rate of invention patent examination closures reached 95.2%, and the sampling pass rates of trademark – related processes exceeded 97%. Examinations for utility models lacking inventiveness and distinctive design patents were carried out. China is the world’s first country with over 4 million valid domestic invention patents (4.756 million). The application volumes of PCT international patents, Madrid international trademarks, and Hague System design patents are among the world’s top. The number of valid invention patents in strategic emerging industries reached 1.349 million, up 15.7% year – on – year. The “Blue Sky” special rectification action in the agency industry was deepened, improving the industry environment.

Suzhou Intermediate People’s Court: Second – Instance Ruling! Using Others’ Trademarks in Friendship Links Constitutes Infringement

This is a trademark infringement and unfair competition dispute case. Appellants are X – Rite (Shanghai) Color Technology Co., Ltd. and Kunshan Henggang Electronic Technology Co., Ltd., and appellees are Anbona Electronic Technology (Shanghai) Co., Ltd., Aistanding Instrument Technology (Suzhou) Co., Ltd., and Mr. Liu. The court ruled that setting “X – Rite” and “爱色丽” as friendship link names on relevant websites by some companies and Henggang’s use of a similar logo on its website’s page tags and in selling related products constituted trademark infringement. Also, Henggang’s use of these as website hyperlink identifiers and domain – name registration was unfair competition. The first – instance court ordered Henggang to stop unfair competition, cancel domain names, and pay compensation. The second – instance court maintained the domain – name cancellation, adjusted compensation to include all defendants, and dismissed Henggang’s appeals. The second – instance ruling was on August 15, 2025.

Trademark | Putuo Court: Malicious Trademark Registration Constitutes Abuse of Rights

This news covers a trademark infringement dispute between Linhai Tuoshan Trading Co., Ltd. (plaintiff) and Shanghai Hejikidenghan Trading Co., Ltd. (defendant). The court stated that when judging malicious trademark registration, it should consider the applicant’s registration, subsequent use, and intention. The plaintiff, knowing the high popularity of the prior “DENHAM” trademark in clothing, applied for similar trademarks on related products like glasses. Their subsequent false publicity and use of the right – holder’s store photos showed malicious intent to appropriate others’ goodwill. This act is regarded as “pre – registering others’ used and well – known trademarks by improper means” under Article 32 of the Trademark Law, and the obtained trademark rights are baseless.

For similar goods’ judicial determination, it should rely on consumers’ general perception rather than just the “Similar Goods and Services Classification Table”. For fashion brands, clothing and accessories like glasses can be seen as similar goods.

The first – instance court dismissed the plaintiff’s claims and ordered 20,000 yuan compensation for the defendant’s reasonable expenses. The second – instance court upheld the original judgment.

UPC Era: Patent Battle between Gilead and AMMS – Paths to Patent Effectiveness and Strategic Choices

In June 2025, Gilead Sciences sued the Academy of Military Medical Sciences (AMMS) at the UPC Milan Central Branch for patent revocation and initiated an EPO opposition. The involved patent, EP 3 854 403, granted on June 18, 2025, covers Remdesivir – similar compounds, threatening Gilead’s core product.

This lawsuit is crucial for Gilead as it impacts its drug patent, business model, and European market share. If the patent stands, Gilead may face infringement risks and licensing fees.

Gilead used a multi – pronged litigation strategy, filing in the UPC, EPO, and UK High Court, a common approach of multinational pharma firms in the UPC era to cover European markets and pressure opponents.

The UPC has become a major international pharma litigation hub with rising case volume. It offers a centralized patent – challenging way for multinationals but also brings more litigation pressure.

This case offers insights like the defensive value of research patents, considering reconciliation, dual challenges of the UP mode, separate strategies for non – UPC states, and the need for Chinese institutions to plan patent and risk – resistance strategies when entering Europe.

Understanding Malawi’s Trademark Opposition System

This article comprehensively analyzes Malawi’s trademark opposition system, which is managed by the Registrar General’s Department (RGD) under the Ministry of Justice and governed by the Trademarks Act, Cap. 49:01. The RGD is responsible for trademark application review, publication, and opposition case handling. Foreign objectors must use local agents. The opposition window is 60 days from the trademark’s publication. Oppositions must be based on statutory grounds and evidence. The process has five stages, and the losing party can appeal to the High Court within 30 days. The average process takes 18 – 24 months, and judicial appeals can add 2 – 3 years. The system has issues like vague review standards and high evidence thresholds. Enterprises are advised to pre – register, collect local evidence, and prioritize settlements. The RGD is developing an electronic application system to improve efficiency.

[Understand at a Glance] Tunisia’s Trademark Opposition System

This article comprehensively analyzes Tunisia’s trademark opposition system, a crucial legal mechanism led by the National Institute of Industrial Property of Tunisia (INNORPI) to safeguard rights and prevent malicious registrations, in line with the Tunisian Trademark Law (Law No. 36 – 2019). The administrative body, INNORPI, under the Ministry of Trade and Export Development, handles formal examinations and opposition cases, with foreign entities required to use local agents. The opposition period is 30 days from the publication of trademark details in the official bulletin. Oppositions must be based on Article 18 of the Trademark Law, with evidence of likelihood of confusion or right – ownership required. The process consists of five stages, and appeals can be made to the Tunisian Court of Appeal. The average duration is 18 – 30 months, and court appeals can add 2 – 3 years. The system faces challenges like limited review and high evidence thresholds. Enterprises are advised to register in advance, use local agents, and build an evidence system. With Tunisia’s participation in the Madrid Protocol and EU IP cooperation, the efficiency and transparency of the opposition process are gradually improving.

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