I. Revision Background

On November 10, 2025, the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) issued the Decision on Amending the Guidelines for Patent Examination (Order No. 84), which will take effect on January 1, 2026.

II. Key Points for Revision

(1) Preliminary Examination Matters

1) Standardization of Inventor Information.

The inventor must be a natural person, and the request form must be filled out with the real information of all inventors. False reporting is prohibited. The examiner generally does not proactively verify the identity of the inventor, but will verify its authenticity when there is evidence indicating non-compliance with the regulations. This measure not only excludes the eligibility of non-natural persons such as artificial intelligence as inventors, but also curbs fraudulent claims of inventorship.

Key Points for Filling in Inventor Information in Patent Applications(Effective as of January 1, 2026):

a.Foreign Inventors: Fill in the full names and nationalities of all foreign inventors. ID numbers are not required for now (the same rule applies to PCT applications entering China).

b.Chinese Inventors: Fill in the full names, nationalities and ID numbers of all Chinese inventors.

c.Core Requirements: Inventors must be natural persons. All inventor information shall be truthful and complete.

d.After implementation, the actual situation may be further adjusted, and our company will keep a close eye on it.

2) New Priority Rules for Divisional Applications.

Failure to declare priority in a divisional application shall be deemed as not claiming priority. The applicant must accurately fill in the priority information in the request form for divisional application. If a notice of "Deemed Not to Have Claimed Priority" is received, priority may be restored in accordance with Section 6.2.6.1 of Chapter 1, Part 1 of the Guidelines.

(2) Substantive Examination Matters

1) Clarification of the Subject Matter for Plant Variety Protection.

A Plant variety is defined as "a plant grouping that has been artificially selected or discovered and improved, exhibiting consistent morphological and biological characteristics as well as stable genetic traits." It is clarified that wild plants which have undergone artificial selection and possess industrial value do not qualify as scientific discoveries. The wording regarding genetically modified animals and plants has also been adjusted: if such organisms fall under the category of animal or plant varieties, they shall not be eligible as patentable subject matter. This amendment helps delineate the boundary with the Regulations on the Protection of New Varieties of Plants and expands the scope of patentable subject matter.

2) Standardization of Same-Day Application Procedures.

Where the same applicant files both a utility model application and an invention patent application on the same day, an explanation must be provided. If no such explanation is given, the case shall be handled in accordance with Article 9(1) of the Patent Law, which states that "only one patent right shall be granted for the same invention." If the utility model has already been granted and remains in force, the invention application shall be rejected directly. If an explanation has been submitted and no grounds for rejection are found during the examination of the invention application, the applicant must abandon the utility model patent right; otherwise, the invention application will be rejected. The previous provision allowing authorization through amendment of the invention has been removed.

3) Refinement of Inventiveness Assessment Rules.

Technical features in the claims that do not contribute to solving the technical problem generally cannot support inventiveness. It is emphasized that examiners should adopt the perspective of a person skilled in the art and evaluate the technical solution as a whole.

4) Clarification of Examination Rules Related to Artificial Intelligence and Big Data.

Where an application involves data collection, tag management, rule setting, recommendation decisions, etc., and such content violates laws, public order, good morals, or harms the public interest, it shall not be granted. Requirements and examples have been added regarding ethical review of artificial intelligence and the sufficient disclosure of specifications, thereby filling a regulatory gap and raising the threshold for applications.

5) New Rules for Examining Streaming Media Inventions.

Mere bit streams as such are not eligible for patent protection. However, if the video encoding method used to generate the bit stream constitutes a technical solution, its associated limited storage, transmission methods, and computer-readable media may be protected. Clear requirements for drafting the relevant application documents have also been established, aligning with the developmental needs of the streaming media industry.

(3) Re-examination and Invalidation Matters

1) Addition of Grounds for Non-Acceptance of Invalidation Petitions.

"Does not reflect the genuine intent of the petitioner" is now included as grounds for rejection, aiming to prevent fraudulent applications.

2) Clarification of Grounds and Evidence in Invalidation Requests.

The phrase "the same grounds and evidence" has been amended to "the same or substantially identical grounds and evidence." This revision better implements the principle of non bis in idem and balances the interests of the petitioner and the patentee.

3) Standardization of Amendment Submission in Invalidation Proceedings.

A new provision requires patentees to submit amendments in the format of "full-text replacement pages + a markup table showing changes." If multiple amendments are submitted in the same proceeding, the last compliant version will serve as the basis for examination, thereby reducing disputes and improving efficiency.

(4) Patent Application and Transaction Processing

1) Adjustment of Fee Rules for Sequence Listings.

Electronic sequence listings that comply with the prescribed format will no longer incur page fees, while paper submissions will continue to be subject to an additional per-page charge. This change reduces the burden on applicants and promotes electronic filing.

2) Revision of Refund Rules.

The previous categories of "refund initiated by the Patent Office" and "refund requested by the party involved" have been merged. Where fees are overpaid, duplicated, or erroneously paid, the Patent Office will no longer initiate refunds on its own. The concerned party must submit a formal request to ensure accurate and timely refund processing.

3) Clarification of Patent Term Adjustment Compensation.

Delays caused by the re-examination procedure initiated based on new grounds or evidence submitted by the petitioner are now included as qualifying delays for patent term adjustment. "New grounds" refer to those not previously raised during the substantive examination, and "new evidence" refers to evidence not submitted prior to the final rejection decision. Exceptions apply where the re-examination involves procedural violations in the rejection process.

III. Conclusion

This revision is comprehensive and targeted, aligning with the patent protection needs arising from new technological developments. It clarifies multiple examination rules and procedures. Patent applicants must strictly adhere to the updated Guidelines to enhance application quality—from document preparation and response during examination to cost management—ensuring efficient protection for their inventions and creations.