Intellectual Property Newsletter by MeritsIP, September 10, 2025

Intellectual Property Newsletter by MeritsIP, September 10, 2025

September 10, 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.

Zhejiang Holds On – site Meeting to Promote Administrative Adjudication of Patent Infringement Disputes and Rapid Collaborative Protection of Intellectual Property

Recently, the Zhejiang Intellectual Property Office and the Zhejiang Department of Justice held an on – site meeting in Zhoushan. Officials from the CNIPA and the Ministry of Justice attended for guidance. The meeting summarized the pilot project of standardizing administrative adjudication of patent infringement disputes at the municipal and county levels and the province’s work on rapid collaborative protection of intellectual property. It emphasized that in the next stage, Zhejiang should focus on five aspects to complete the pilot project acceptance with high standards. The meeting also required national intellectual property protection and rapid rights – protection centers in the province to be demand – oriented, and become the main force for innovation, vanguard for industrial system construction, and pacesetter for high – level development, creating a high – quality operation demonstration model of the national rapid collaborative protection system for intellectual property.

Tianjin Builds an “Intellectual Property Protection Line” in Binhai to Support the SCO Summit

During the 2025 SCO Summit, intellectual property departments in Tianjin’s Binhai New Area intensified governance in key areas and markets. The Tianjin Intellectual Property Office sent officials to guide reform. Specific measures included meeting with market organizers to address IP issues, establishing prevention mechanisms, and strengthening merchant supervision. Joint inspection teams increased inspections on goods like clothing, shoes, and bags, cracking down on trademark infringement. Over 40 market entities were inspected, and over 30 illegal products were removed. IP laws were promoted to merchants and consumers, and on – site questions were answered. In the future, municipal and district offices will strengthen coordination, promote cross – departmental cooperation, and establish a long – term governance mechanism, maintaining a tough stance against infringement to optimize the business and consumption environment.

Laboratory Technology Commercialization: Challenges and Solutions from a Chinese Automaker

Chery Automobile, in the new – energy transformation, aims to cultivate patent – intensive products. It focuses on key technologies, builds a full – chain innovation system via industry – university – research cooperation, forming a “demand – technology – industry” closed – loop. Its “technology – driven” brand is supported by many patents, like in the third – generation hybrid project with over 300 global patent apps.

Yet, commercializing lab tech faces challenges. High auto – part trial – production costs and long verification periods due to safety requirements may prevent tech commercialization and waste patent protection periods.

Chery has strategies. It creates a patent grading system to allocate resources and sets up an industrialization fund. This solves financial issues and speeds up industrialization. More innovative entities are narrowing the gap between “lab” and “production line” with innovation systems and diversified cooperation.

No Longer “Choked”: This Production Line Enables 100% Domestic Replacement of High – end CMOS Sensors

The Changchun Institute of Optics, Fine Mechanics and Physics (CIOMP) in Changchun, Jilin Province, has made remarkable progress in front – side illuminated CMOS image sensor production. Through industry – university – research cooperation with local governments, state – owned investment platforms, and industrial chain enterprises, CIOMP carried out technological research and patent layout. It contributed 300 million yuan in intellectual property rights using 17 relevant patents. Upstream enterprises invested 130 million yuan in cash, and provincial and municipal governments injected 1.7 billion yuan. The economic and technological development zone provided infrastructure. Together, they established Changchun Changguang Zhengyuan Microelectronics Technology Co., Ltd. with a 1.6 – billion – yuan registered capital.

The company built China’s first domestically – controlled front – side illuminated CMOS production line with an annual trial – production capacity of 20,000 pieces and a 90nm technology node. This line solved industry pain points, completed the CMOS industrial chain, and achieved 100% domestic replacement of high – end CMOS sensors. It also drove related industries, created jobs, generated 5 billion yuan in economic benefits, and trained high – end professionals, offering great demonstration value for China’s integrated circuit industry.

HanShuo vs SES: Why Patent Wars Are a Must for Chinese Enterprises Going Global

This text reviews the patent dispute between Hanshow and SES. The conflict started in 2022 when SES accused Hanshow of infringement at a German fair. It escalated to lawsuits in the US, UPC, and France in 2023 and ended with a global settlement in August 2025. SES, a market – leader, used litigation to contain fast – expanding Hanshow. The core of the conflict is patents related to electronic shelf label communication and system management. In cross – border litigation, SES’s temporary injunction application in the UPC was rejected, while in the US, the PTAB upheld relevant patents, putting Hanshow on the defensive. The UPC showed a “cautious and open” attitude. This case provides lessons for Chinese globalizing enterprises, such as establishing monitoring systems, seeking a voice in core patents, and building a “technology – market – rules” moat. Also, cross – border patent disputes can affect capital operations and development.

Unauthorized Sales Do Not Lead to Loss of Novelty in Plant Varieties

The Supreme People’s Court Intellectual Property Tribunal recently ruled in the second – instance of an administrative dispute over the invalidation of a plant variety right. Appellant Chen Moufang claimed the “Calypso” variety of Aite Plant Horticulture (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. lacked novelty as it was sold beyond the grace – period both at home and abroad before the application date.

The court held that only authorized sales by the breeder or variety – right holder can undermine a plant variety’s novelty. The sales presented by Chen were unauthorized “infringing sales” by infringers.

Concerning the grace – period, for newly – listed plant varieties within one year, the domestic novelty grace – period is extended to four years, while the foreign one remains unchanged. The 2006 sales in China were still within the grace – period.

This case clarifies that unauthorized sales don’t affect plant variety novelty, refines the novelty – determination rules, and enriches judicial practice in plant variety authorization and confirmation.

Typical Case | Quzhou Intermediate People’s Court: 3-fold Punitive Damages! Those Who Misuse Huawei Trademarks for Traffic Are Severely Punished

This is a trademark infringement and unfair competition case. Huawei owns four registered trademarks like “Huawei” for mobile phones. Without authorization, Quzhou Daben E-commerce and Zhang used Douyin accounts to post short – videos with Huawei’s trademarks for live – streaming traffic. They set up a Huawei – like live – streaming room, used Huawei’s trademarks during live – streaming, and sold other brands’ digital products for commissions.

The first – instance court found them guilty of trademark infringement and unfair competition, applying 3 – fold punitive damages and ordering them to compensate Huawei 1.1 million yuan. They appealed.

The Quzhou Intermediate People’s Court in the second – instance trial affirmed the first – instance judgment, stating their actions caused consumer confusion, constituted trademark infringement and unfair competition as per the Anti – Unfair Competition Law.

This case combats infringement in the live – streaming e – commerce model, reflecting the judicial orientation of protecting well – known brands and promoting the healthy development of the online live – streaming industry.

IPbao Trademark & Brand Growth Ceremony Held in Taiyuan, Top 50 Chinese Trademark Protection Model Enterprises Announced

On September 6, during the 15th China International Trademark Brand Festival, IPbao held the “IPbao and His Friends – Trademark & Brand Growth Ceremony (2025)” in Taiyuan. The event, hosted by IPbao’s vice – president Yi Penghua, gathered enterprise representatives and agency heads in the trademark field.

It introduced the evaluation criteria for the “2025 Trademark Agency Service Capacity Data Statistics 600” and the “Top 50 Chinese Trademark Protection Model Enterprises”. The former was jointly conducted by the China Trademark magazine and IPbao, evaluating agencies based on multiple dimensions using 2024 official data. The latter used IPbao’s self – developed database to evaluate enterprises from six core dimensions.

IPbao’s CEO Pu Xiang promised to continue empowering the industry. Award – winning representatives emphasized data – driven IP strategies. A dinner party after the ceremony promoted communication and future cooperation. This event recognized outstanding players and provided an exchange platform for the IP field.

Typical Case: The Supreme People’s Court’s Determination of Registering Another Party’s “Well – known” Trade Name

This case is an unfair competition dispute between Bull Group and Bull King, along with Mr. Xiang. Bull Group has well – known “Bull” trademarks and a well – known trade name in Zhejiang. Bull King, established later, used “Bull” in its trade name. The first – instance court found Bull King’s use of “Bull” in the trade name an unfair competition act, ordering it to stop and compensate. The second – instance court reversed the decision, claiming it was not “commercial use”. The Supreme People’s Court in retrial ruled that registering a trade name is a form of use under the Anti – Unfair Competition Law. Even without actual operations, Bull King’s act of registering the “Bull” trade name was unfair competition. The Supreme People’s Court revoked the second – instance judgment and upheld the first – instance one. This is a typical case for well – known trade name protection, curbing unfair practices.

WIPO Releases Intellectual Property Valuation Guide for Technology Transfer Professionals

In August 2025, the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) issued the guide “Accelerating Innovation in Life Sciences: Valuation Basics for Technology Transfer Professionals”. Targeted at technology transfer professionals, especially university innovators, it offers essential knowledge and tools for handling IP valuation scenarios and making prudent commercialization decisions based on institutional IP assets.

IP valuation is crucial for university technology transfer managers and innovation professionals. The guide presents five valuation methods for technology transfer: the cost method, which estimates value based on replacement cost; the market method, comparing target IP with similar market transactions; the income method, assessing value by discounting future cash flows; the real options valuation method, treating IP assets like financial options; and the Monte Carlo method, using computer modeling for complex or high – risk IP assets.

The guide aims to empower professionals, promote technology transfer and commercialization, and help grow institutional IP assets.

[Professional Knowledge] Philippine Patent Invalidation System

This article explores the Philippine patent invalidation system, providing guidance for businesses and individuals in the country. Interested parties or official agency personnel can initiate invalidation proceedings. For invention and utility model patents, requests can be made anytime after authorization, while design patents usually have a time limit.

Invalidation reasons include lack of novelty, non – patentability, failure to meet formal requirements, fraud, and public interest concerns. The process involves submitting a request with evidence, form review by the BLA of the IPO, the patentee’s response and evidence exchange, determining the hearing method, BLA’s substantive review and decision, and potential court appeals.

The BLA, composed of members with legal and technical expertise, hears cases using written and hearing methods with strict evidence rules. Outcomes are either patent invalidation or maintenance of validity. Dissatisfied parties can appeal to the appellate court and then the Supreme Court. Enterprises should ensure patent application quality, respond actively to invalidation requests, and use the procedure to protect their interests when needed.

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.

M	T	W	T	F	S	S
			1	2	3	4
5	6	7	8	9	10	11
12	13	14	15	16	17	18
19	20	21	22	23	24	25
26	27	28	29	30	31

MeritsIP

MeritsIP