中國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
黃幸兒女士
車李曉芸女士

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 Proposes New Examination Guidelines for Utility Models

2022年11月24日
The Utility Model (UM) in China has always been a popular choice for patent filing due to its relatively low cost and speed of prosecution. The UM prosecution only includes a preliminary examination, which is essentially a mini (stripped down) version of an invention application’s substantive examination.1 With the simplified examination process, UMs are typically […]

Stay Ahead: Getting a Chinese Patent in Three Months?

2024年4月23日
The China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) has announced a significant development in the realm of patent prosecution: the initiation of the "PPH Improvement Initiative" in collaboration with key patent offices from the United States, Europe, Japan, and South Korea. This initiative aims to elevate the user experience of the Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) by […]

Finally a unified “Court of Appeal” for technology IP in China

2019年1月22日
On October 26, 2018, China’s Supreme People’s Court (“SPC”) received approval to establish a specialized intellectual property court within the SPC to handle appeal cases involving technology-related IP for both civil (e.g., patent infringement) and administrative (e.g., patent invalidity) judgments. Technology-related IP includes invention patents, utility models, new plant species, IC design, trade secret, software, […]

Is it Sufficient to Claim an Antibody only by Describing its Antigen?

2018年11月12日
Things may be brewing with respect to antibody inventions. Just how much description is sufficient? After losing in the Federal Circuit, Amgen has decided to ask the US Supreme Court to weigh in on a standard that could vastly influence the pharmaceutical and biotech industry. The story relates to Repatha™, an LDL-lowering drug from Amgen […]

我們過去活動

Top crossarrow-right