中国agreementsDesignExamination GuidePatent Law
2023年1月4日

FOLLOW UP: Amendments to the China Patent Examination Guidelines in 2022 – Part 1: New rules for designs in view of China signing onto the Hague Agreement

by
黄幸儿女士
车李晓芸女士

Since the publication of our earlier article about China signing onto the Hague Agreement, some of our Hong Kong clients have expressed interest in taking advantage of the Hague international design application system, i.e., filing a Hague international design application with the CNIPA (Chinese National Intellectual Property Administration) as a receiving office (RO).

Up until this moment, the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and the CNIPA1 have been silent on whether a Hong Kong design applicant without a habitual residence or business office in mainland China would be eligible to file a Hague international design application with the CNIPA as a RO.

We recently brought this matter forward to the CNIPA. The CNIPA confirmed that Hong Kong applicants without a habitual residence or business office in mainland China are not eligible to file such type of application with the CNIPA.

A Hague application currently does not cover Hong Kong nor Macao

Although China is included in the current list of the contracting parties of the Hague Agreement, Hong Kong SAR and Macao SAR – both separate jurisdictions having distinct Basic Laws from the People Republic of China – are not included.

This means that Hong Kong and Macao design applicants must file independent design applications in these two regions.

Despite the current situation, things may change in the future. China’s “instrument of accession” (legal document indicating China’s agreement to join the Hague Agreement) provides room for change, stating that the current situation stands “until otherwise notified by the Government of the People’s Republic of China”2. This means that China has already included provisions allowing it to provide notification of changes regarding Hong Kong and Macao in the future.

Stay tuned for more upcoming articles about the other changes in the proposed Patent Examination Guidelines.

This article is for general informational purposes only and should not be considered legal advice or a legal opinion on a specific set of facts.

  1. https://www.wipo.int/hague/en/
    https://www.wipo.int/hague/memberprofiles/selectmember#/
    https://www.wipo.int/hague/en/news/2022/news_0005.html
    https://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/notifications/hague/treaty_hague_146.html
    https://wipolex.wipo.int/en/treaties/ShowResults?search_what=C&treaty_id=9
    https://www.cnipa.gov.cn/col/col2893/index.html
    https://www.cnipa.gov.cn/art/2022/10/31/art_75_180016.html
    https://www.cnipa.gov.cn/module/download/downfile.jsp?classid=0&showname=附件1:《专利审查指南修改草案(再次征求意见稿)》修改对照表.pdf&filename=dab071af523943b49eaf1114a84b6234.pdf ↩︎
  2. https://www.wipo.int/hague/en/news/2022/news_0005.html ↩︎

其他文章

CHINA: New Patent Examination Guidelines Now Available for Public Comment

2021年8月4日
Two months after the new Chinese Patent law came into effect, the CNIPA has released a new set of Patent Examination Guidelines (proposed version) for public comments on Aug 3, 2021. Here are the explanation of the amendments (Chinese only). Here is the full set of proposed amendments (Chinese only). Briefly, the new amendment focuses […]

Patent Eligibility for Software in China

2022年4月4日
Technology has progressed significantly since the early days of patent law, when US lawmakers in 1952 could only envision patentable subject matter into categories like “process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.” The recent explosion of new types of innovations that don’t fall neatly into these categories has resulted in a game of catch-up, where […]

How Far Can an Employer Reach to Own Employee-made “Service Inventions”?

2020年7月30日
2019 China’s Top 50 Representative IP Cases Shenzhen Weibang Technology Co. Ltd v. Li Jianyi & Shenzhen Yuancheng Intelligence Equipment Co. Ltd (2019最高法民申6342号) Each year in China there are hundreds of disputes over patent ownership.  A significant part of them are related to “Service Inventions”, which are defined in Article 6 of the Chinese Patent […]
Tapentadol.svg

Polymorph Patents in China: What is the Standard for Inventiveness for New Crystal Forms?

2020年7月14日
This case is focused on polymorphs, namely what are the standards for novelty and inventiveness when it comes to new crystal forms of a known drug? A recent Supreme People’s Court decision in China is illustrative of the way Chinese courts are thinking about polymorph patents in China. Grünenthal is a German pharmaceutical company and […]

我们的过去活动

Top crossarrow-right