Examination GuideHong KongInventionsPatent LawUpdates and Changes
2024年2月29日

Updates on Hong Kong Patents Examination Guidelines in 2024

The Intellectual Property Department of the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China (HKIPD) has recently made several updates to the Hong Kong Patents Examination Guidelines, effective from 26 January, 2024. These changes mainly clarify and reflect the Registry’s current practices regarding patent examination for Standard Patent (R) Applications, Standard Patent (O) Applications (i.e., Original Grant Patents (OGP)), and Short-Term Patent Applications. We briefly summarize the key revisions below:

Section 1: Novelty - This section only made a minor textual revision to correct a typographical error to refer to the correct section (from section 1.61 to 1.62) in 1.61. The change made is not substantial.

Section 4: Exclusions from Patentability: Excluded Subject Matter - The revisions in Section 4.7 clarify that art falling within the field of section 9B(3)1 of the Ordinance will not be excluded for consideration when assessing the contribution that an inventor has added to human knowledge in the second step of the Aerotel/Macrossan test2. In other words, all art falling within the definition of “state of the art” under 9B(3) shall be included within the scope of “human knowledge”.

Section 7: Kinds of Claims - The amendments made to Section 7.6 aim to clarify the examples of claims that are not necessarily dependent claims in substance. In brief, the amendments clarify that (1) a claim referring to another claim of a different category (e.g., an apparatus for carrying out the process of claim 1); and (2) a claim to one part referring to another co-operating part of another claim (e.g., a plug for co-operation with the socket of claim 1) are not necessarily dependent claims in substance. In other words, they are considered independent claims.

Section 13: Patent Applications - The revised guidelines in section 13.24(b) clarify the examination standards of the statement of entitlement to apply. In brief, an updated official register of the designated patent office or an official communication from the designated patent office confirming a transfer, assignment or mortgage will no longer be recognized as a supporting document that can establish an applicant’s entitlement to apply for a request for registration and grant of a Standard Patent (R) if the applicant for the request for registration and grant is not the same as the entity named in the register (i.e., the applicant for request to record). The applicant will need to submit a copy of the duly executed transfer, assignment or mortgage agreement.

Section 15: Substantive Examination of Standard Patent (O) Applications and Short-term Patents - This section has undergone significant changes to provide further clarity and guidance on the role of hearings as part of the patent prosecution process. In brief, for a Standard Patent (O) and Short-Term application, if the Registrar issues a review opinion and/or a further review opinion(s) to the applicant, the Registrar will generally offer the applicant an opportunity to file a request for a hearing if the Registrar thinks it fit to do so. In addition, before a Standard Patent (O) application is refused (section 15.29A) or a Short-Term patent is revoked (section 15.50A), the applicant or the proprietor must be given an opportunity to be heard. In other words, OGP and Hong Kong Short-Term applicants generally will have an opportunity to conduct a hearing in response to a review opinion and/or further review opinion(s), especially before an application is finally rejected/revoked.

EIP Thoughts

Since its launch in December 2019, the Standard Patent (O) (i.e., OGP system) has enriched the patent landscape in Hong Kong. This system allows applicants to directly file patent applications in Hong Kong without the need for a prior granted patent from China, Europe, or the UK. As we enter the fifth year of its implementation, a significant number of initial applications have now reached the substantive examination stage. We believe that the HKIPD has recognized the need for clarification of certain aspects of the Patents Examination Guidelines to ensure consistency with the latest practices and examination procedures. For further details and the complete revised guidelines, please refer to the Hong Kong Intellectual Property Department's official website.

We hope this information proves useful and assists you in navigating the Hong Kong patent examination processes effectively. As always, we remain dedicated to providing Hong Kong patent law updates.

If you would like to have more information on this matter or would like to have our advice, please feel free to contact us at [email protected].

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.

About the Authors

Bill Yip is a qualified Chinese Patent Attorney at Eagle IP, a Boutique Patent Firm with offices in Hong Kong, Shenzhen, and Macau.

Jennifer Che, J.D. is Managing Director and a US Patent Attorney at Eagle IP, a Boutique Patent Firm with offices in Hong Kong, Shenzhen, and Macau.

其他文章

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, […]

A Detailed Dive into China’s New Patent Term Extension Provisions

2020年12月11日
This article is a part of a larger article that highlights the newest draft implementation rules of the new Chinese Patent Law. This particular article takes a detailed dive into the patent term extension/adjustment provisions. One of the biggest and most exciting provisions in the newly amended patent law is patent term extension for delay […]
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 […]

China Top 50 Case of 2019: How a Functional Feature is Construed Greatly Impacts Protection Scope - Shimano KK v. SENSAH

2020年7月20日
Every year in the spring The Supreme People’s Court of PRC announces its “Top 10 Intellectual Property (IP) cases” and “50 typical IP cases in Chinese courts” of the year. Although not having precedential weight, these cases serve as a reference and guide people's courts at all levels regarding their intellectual property trials. It’s always […]

我們過去活動

Top crossarrow-right