double_arrow
Article Archive

double_arrow Ask an Attorney

reCAPTCHA

What Our Customers Say...

4.9
Based on 97 reviews
powered by Google
Robert Baker
Robert Baker
11:20 16 Apr 24
Great support from Will and the team getting my patent application to... first filing.read more
Kieran Thomas
Kieran Thomas
22:22 07 Mar 24
Robert and the team have been great to work with and we've just... successfully secured our first patent. Whenever we needed any advice or had any questions, Robert and the team were more than happy to help, and any answers were always communicated in a way which was easy to understand. Thank you all for helping us secure our first patent!read more
Christian Janke
Christian Janke
20:20 14 Dec 23
I recently had the pleasure of working with Joel Weston on what initially... seemed like a minor IPO issue, but it evolved into a comprehensive co-existence agreement with another company. I can’t express enough how much I valued Joel’s expertise, depth of knowledge, and meticulous guidance throughout this process. It was more than just legal advice; for me, it was akin to an enlightening crash course in IP law!read more
See All Reviews
js_loader


double_arrow
Need a Product Designer?


double_arrow
Helpful Tips

Do I have to identify the designer?
It is possible to waive the name of the designer when filing a European Community Design, but you should be sure that you have the rights to the design

Proposed tougher substantive examination for Utility Model and Design Patent Applications in China

by | Jul 1, 2013

China flag

In a bid to improve the quality of Utility Models and Design Patents granted in China, the Chinese State Intellectual Property Office (SIPO) has put forward proposals to impose tougher examination requirements for Chinese Utility Model and Design Patent applications.

 

Currently, a Chinese design patent application does not undergo substantive examination. This means that, although the Chinese Patent Law requires a design to be new and distinctly different from any one of the existing designs known anywhere in the world, in practise, a Chinese Examiner does not conduct any searching during examination of the design application. Based on the current Examination Guidelines, the Examiner is only required to examine the application based on the application details and what is considered to be common knowledge of a general consumer.

 

Equally, although a Utility Model application is required to be novel, creative and of practical use under the Chinese Patent Law, the level of examination requirement is similarly low.

 

Considering an Invention Patent application, which is the equivalent of a standard patent available in countries or regions such as the UK, Europe or the US, typically takes around 3 to 6 years to grant, grant of a Utility Model can be obtained relatively quickly, typically between 10 to 18 months. A Design Patent can be even quicker. As such, a Chinese Utility Model, or a Chinese Design Patent, has been a faster, cheaper and easier way to obtain patent protection for an invention, compared to an Invention Patent. Both forms of patent protections have been proving popular. In 2011, SIPO granted 408,000 Utility Models and 380,000 Design Patents.

 

However, this may all be about to change. In a public consultation issued in February 2013, SIPO has indicated that the lack of substantive examination for Utility Model and Design Patent applications have caused patents to be granted to inventions or designs that are already known, or caused patents to be granted to inventions or designs more than once, i.e. double patenting.

 

In order to improve the quality of Utility Models and Design Patents, SIPO is proposing to amend the Examination Guidelines such that Examiners are encouraged to conduct searches on existing technologies and designs when examining Utility Model and Design Patent applications. Furthermore, the Guidelines proposed to be amended such that Examiners are not restricted as to how such information are obtained.

 

It is envisaged that if SIPO is to implement its proposed changes to tighten examination procedures for Utility Model and Design Patent applications, the costs and time required to see such applications through to grant are also likely to increase.

 

Early indications suggest that SIPO may already be implementing changes and Examiners will be improving enforcement of the novelty requirement for such applications. However, even with tighter examination requirements, for an invention with a short commercial life and somewhat limited novelty, a Utility Model application should still be the favoured choice of patent protection in China.

 

Further updates on the outcome of the consultation and Chinese Patent Examination Guidelines are available on our website.

 

If you would like further advice on how best to protect your invention(s) in China, please call or e-mail us.