Recently, the CNIPA released the Guidelines for Invention Patent Applications Involving Standards, focusing on the communication field, guiding and regulating invention patent applications involving standards, promoting the integration of patents with international standards, and facilitating patents to become Standard Essential Patents (SEP).

SEP (Standard Essential Patent) is essential for implementing standards, with the core lying in the correspondence between patent claims and standards. Correspondence analysis between the two is conducted by decomposing the technical features of claims and comparing them with standard descriptions. A commonly used tool for this purpose is the Claim Comparison Table (CC Table).

Standardization at various stages requires adapting patent strategies: initial patents should be arranged during the proposal stage. During the drafting and review stages, the portfolio should be refined and the claims adjusted. After publication, the claims of pending patents can be amended in conjunction with the final standard content, so as to promote patent authorization and transformation.

There are three core application strategies. First, the priority system: filing an early application to secure a filing date, then submitting subsequent applications within the prescribed period to claim the priority of the earlier application. Second, the novelty grace period: a special remedial measure that involves declaring the grace period at the time of filing and submitting supporting documents within a specified timeframe. Third, deferred examination: requesting deferral of examination when submitting the request for substantive examination, combined with a strategy of postponing that request. This approach prevents patents from being examined before the relevant standard is finalized, allows applicants to adaptively amend claims as standardization progresses, and provides up to six years of pendency.

When drafting patent applications, it is necessary to consider both authorization and standardization alignment. Drafters should use standard terminology, design claims in a hierarchical manner, and expand implementation examples. Additionally, factors such as inventiveness and alternative solutions should be taken into account. In responding to examination opinions, it is essential to consider the generational evolution of communication standards, clarify technical meanings, refine claim scope, and achieve coordinated development between patents and standards.