On November 10, 2025, the CNIPA issued the Decision of the China National Intellectual Property Administration on Amending the Patent Examination Guidelines. The amended Guidelines for Patent Examination will come into effect on January 1, 2026. This article will briefly outline the key revisions closely relevant to applicants.
I. Authenticity of Inventor Identity and Applicant Information
・An inventor must be a natural person. It is explicitly prohibited to list entities, collectives, or artificial intelligence as inventors in the request for patent application.
・Inventor information must be complete and authentic: Identity information for all inventors must be provided and must be truthful.
・Verification obligation of patent agencies: Patent agencies are required to verify the identity and contact information of applicants.
Notes:
Under current practice, typically only the identity information of the first inventor is required. However, after this revision, the request for a patent application must contain the identity information of all inventors. Furthermore, listing artificial intelligence or entities as inventor names will be prohibited.
II. New Provisions for Applications for Utility Model and Invention by the same applicant on the Same Day
The applicant must state in each application that another type of patent application (i.e., invention or utility model) has been filed for the same technical solution on the same day. This means both the invention and utility model request forms must indicate the existence of a same-day corresponding application.
When the invention patent application meets the conditions for grant, upon notification from the examiner, the applicant must declare abandonment of the already-granted utility model patent right. Following this declaration, the invention patent is granted, and the CNIPA announces the abandonment of the utility model patent right.
If the applicant refuses to abandon the utility model patent, the invention application will be rejected. If the applicant fails to respond to such a notification, the invention application will be deemed to have been withdrawn.
Notes:
Prior to this revision, for the same applicant filing both an invention and a utility model application for the same technical solution on the same day, it was possible for the applicant to amend the claims of the invention to differ from the granted utility model, thereby obtaining grant of the invention patent while retaining the utility model patent right. After this revision, the aforementioned approach will no longer be permitted.
III. Divisional Applications Must Explicitly Claim Priority
If the parent application of a divisional application enjoys a priority right, and the divisional application request form does not contain a declaration claiming that priority, the divisional application will be deemed not to have claimed the priority right.
Comparison with Current Provisions:
Current provisions do not specifically address claiming priority in divisional applications. This revision fills that gap.
IV. Clarified Examination Standards for Invention Patent Applications Containing Algorithmic Features or Business Rules and Methods Relating to AI, Big Data, etc.
Revised provisions
・Refining Examination Standards Adding the requirement that "examination of the content of the description shall be conducted when necessary," emphasizing a more comprehensive examination.
・Adding Legal Compliance Basis for Examination Specific provisions for examination are added under Article 5, Paragraph 1 of the Patent Law. This includes stipulating that a patent shall not be granted if the content related to data collection, label management, rule setting, etc., in the patent application violates the law, social morality, or is detrimental to the public interest.
・Adjusting and Enriching Examination Examples New Examples: Added several practical examples concerning Article 5 of the Patent Law. For instance, "An Auxiliary System for Mattress Sales in Shopping Malls Based on Big Data" is deemed non-compliant for allegedly violating laws by improperly collecting human facial information; "A Method for Establishing an Emergency Decision-Making Model for Unmanned Vehicles" is deemed contrary to social morality for selecting impact targets based on pedestrian gender and age.
New Examples for Inventive Step Evaluation: Adding new examples such as "A Method for Identifying the Number of Ships" and "A Method for Establishing a Neural Network Model for Scrap Steel Grading." These concretely illustrate how to determine whether algorithmic features contribute to the technical solution during inventive step examination.
Detailing Requirements for Description Drafting: For applications involving AI and similar technologies, the requirements for drafting the description are significantly elaborated. Clear documentation is required regarding the model's necessary modules, layers, connection relationships, as well as specific training steps and parameters. For algorithm applications, it is necessary to explain how the algorithm integrates with the specific field and the setup and correlation of input/output data to ensure sufficient disclosure of the technical solution.
V. Clarification of Definitions and Scope of Protection for Plant and Animal-Related Inventions
Definition of Plant Variety: A plant variety must possess consistent morphological characteristics, biological properties, and stable hereditary traits.
Protection of Wild Plants: Wild plants that have been artificially bred or improved and possess industrial utility value may be eligible for patent protection.
Genetically Modified Animals and Plants: If they still fall within the category of "animal variety" or "plant variety," a patent shall not be granted.
Notes:
When the application for plant-related patents is prepared, it should be stated that the plant has been artificially bred or improved and possesses consistency and stability.
VI. Invalidation Procedure
Strengthening Principle of Res Judicata: Changed from the current "a request for invalidation shall not be accepted or heard if it is filed again based on the same reasons and evidence" to the revised "a request for invalidation shall not be accepted if it is filed again based on the same or substantially the same reasons." New Circumstances for Non-Acceptance of Invalidation Requests: Including situations where the request is not the true intent of the petitioner, among others. This revision, to some extent, restricts the use of a “straw man” petitioner.
Standardizing Submission of Amended Texts: Requiring submission of full-text replacement pages and an amendment comparison table. If multiple amended texts are submitted during the same invalidation proceeding, the last submitted amended text that complies with the provisions shall be used as the basis for examination.
The revisions to the Guidelines for Patent Examination optimize examination standards and procedures, particularly clarifying specific examination rules for emerging fields like AI and big data, further standardizing the procedures for patent application and examination, aiming to provide better and more efficient protection for inventions and creations.
