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.

---

Ningxia’s All – Chain Intellectual Property Protection Escorts the 7th China – Arab States Expo

The 7th China – Arab States Expo was held in Yinchuan, Ningxia. Ningxia used an all – chain model for intellectual property protection during the expo. Before the expo, the Ningxia Intellectual Property Office and related parties strengthened pre – review, sent notices and warning letters, and set up a pre – review system with big – data screening. During the expo, on – site service points were set up, a special team offered one – stop services, a rights – protection hotline was opened, and over 20 consultations were handled. Exhibition halls were jointly inspected, problems were identified, and relevant products were seized. After the expo, the office sorted out issues, conducted follow – up inspections, and provided continuous support. This work met enterprise needs, optimized the business environment, and provided experience for future exhibitions, strengthening the protection barrier for China – Arab economic and trade cooperation.

Source: True

---

LexisNexis Announces Launch of Protégé™ Intelligent Assistant in PatentSight+™ to Accelerate Strategic IP Decision-Making

On September 4, 2025, LexisNexis® Legal & Professional announced the launch of Protégé™ intelligent assistant in its patent analysis platform, LexisNexis® PatentSight+™. Tailored for IP professionals and business leaders, Protégé enables users to pose natural – language questions and receive structured, visualized answers from global patent data.

Andrew Matuch said Protégé will transform how customers engage with patent data, allowing IP experts to focus on strategy. It simplifies traditional patent analysis by eliminating the need for manual query construction and filtering. The system can understand business questions, extract data from PatentSight+, and offer visual insights with explanations.

Built on PatentSight+’s data and analysis methods, Protégé is for strategic business decisions. It can answer strategic questions and provide decision – making insights with full search queries.

A commercial preview will be available to existing customers and AI Insider program members in October 2025, with a full launch expected in November. Future plans include extending functions to more modules, and LexisNexis follows responsible AI R & D principles.

---

The “Negative Conclusion” of the Patent Right Evaluation Report Is No Longer the Threshold for Initiating Infringement Litigation Procedures: The Supreme Court’s 2025 Judicial Interpretation Remodels the Rights Protection Path

In July 2025, the Supreme People’s Court issued a judicial interpretation, clarifying the legal status of the patent right evaluation report and giving it general binding force. Effective from August 1, 2025, it stipulates that the report is just a reference for judging patent validity, not a prerequisite for lawsuits or case – filing.

The patent right evaluation report system was set up by CNIPA to address the stability of utility model and design patents. It’s often misinterpreted, but it’s just a technical opinion with lower legal effect. It’s neither an administrative decision nor a judicial judgment, and requesters can apply for correction if they think it’s wrong.

It’s non – mandatory for plaintiffs in patent infringement lawsuits. Courts can refer to it in judicial proceedings but not rely on it solely. It also affects administrative law enforcement and business operations. Patent holders are advised to assess patent stability, correct wrong reports, and use the report in rights protection. Future legislation should improve relevant procedures.

---

Recognition of Amendments to Obvious Errors in Claims

This case involves an Italian company’s invention patent. In 2021, Hengmou Company requested its invalidation due to unclear protection scopes of claims 1 – 9. The Italian company modified the claims in June 2021, but the CNIPA didn’t accept these modifications, stating they weren’t obvious – error corrections and declared the patent invalid. The Italian company sued. The first – instance court rejected its claim, but the Supreme People’s Court overturned the first – instance judgment and the CNIPA’s decision in (2023) Supreme People’s Court Intellectual Property Appeal No. 246. The court held that obvious – error determination should rely on whether a skilled person can identify errors and get a unique correct understanding by reading relevant materials. The correction of obvious errors restores the original meaning without changing the protection scope. In this case, claim 1 has errors or ambiguities, and the modified claim 1 doesn’t exceed the original scope. So, the CNIPA is required to re – evaluate patent – claim support after accepting the obvious – error correction.

---

New Rule! Protection Centers May No Longer Accept Pre – examination Cases Submitted by Agencies Outside the “List of Patent Agencies for Precise Service and Support”

Recently, the Jiangsu Intellectual Property Office released a public consultation on the “Administrative Measures for Patent Application Pre – examination Services of National Intellectual Property Protection Centers in Jiangsu Province” (Draft for Comment). Without special reasons, protection centers won’t accept pre – examination cases from agencies outside the “List of Patent Agencies for Precise Service and Support” (1,666 agencies in the first two batches). The draft aims to implement policies, promote high – standard construction and high – quality operation of protection centers, and achieve unified management of pre – examination services. It details regulations on filing, registration, cross – regional services, and management. Enterprises applying need to meet conditions and submit materials, and agencies must be on the list. The consultation ends on October 1, 2025, and the public can submit opinions via email, mail, or fax.

---

Trademark | Shanghai IP Court: Reversed in Second Instance! Breaking the “Medical Device Number” Infringement Evasion

This is a trademark infringement case where Magicli Biological Technology Co., Ltd. sued Ding Moumou and others. The key was whether the medical cold compress patches were similar to Magicli’s masks and if the appellees’ actions infringed Magicli’s trademark rights. The court considered both the classification standard and product promotion content and consumers’ perception. The alleged infringing products had similar promotion functions to Magicli’s products, with promotional terms like “hydration and moisturizing” and the product name containing “mask”. Consumers’ reviews also showed they regarded the products as masks or similar. So, the court ruled the medical cold compress patches were similar to Magicli’s masks, and the appellees’ use of the same logo infringed Magicli’s rights. The second – instance court reversed the first – instance judgment. The appellees were ordered to compensate Magicli, with Ding Moumou jointly liable for 3,000 yuan.

---

[Professional Knowledge] Taiwan’s Patent Invalidation System

This article offers an in – depth analysis of Taiwan’s patent invalidation system. It follows a “administrative challenge as main, judicial confirmation as supplement” dual – structure. The core administrative review is by the Taiwan Intellectual Property Office (TIPO), followed by administrative litigation. 1. Legal Framework and Process: Main laws are the “Patent Act” and the “Intellectual Property Case Adjudication Act”. The process includes a challenge application, TIPO’s reviews, and possible administrative litigation. 2. Key Rules in the Challenge Procedure: Challenges need specific evidence, and repeated challenges with the same evidence are not allowed. Patent holders have a 1 – 3 – month response period (extendable by 2 months), and TIPO’s review takes 12 – 18 months on average. Non – Chinese evidence requires a traditional Chinese translation, and extraterritorial evidence needs notarization and authentication. 3. Judicial Review: The Intellectual Property and Commercial Court has first – instance exclusive jurisdiction, and the Supreme Administrative Court is the final instance. New evidence is rarely accepted. 4. Comparison with the Mainland: There are similarities in administrative pre – procedures but differences in jurisdiction and some details. 5. Enterprise Strategies: Use specific evidence combinations, challenge during infringement lawsuits. For patents in both regions, invalidate in the mainland first. 6. Development Trends: The system is digitalizing, enhancing cross – strait cooperation, and promoting judicial specialization. Enterprises should prepare for high – risk patents and adjust claims.

---

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.

Stay Connected

• • Website: https://www.meritsipglobal.com

• • LinkedIn: Follow us on LinkedIn

• • Email: info@meritsip.com

© 2025 MeritsIP. All Rights Reserved.