Newsletter
Amendments to the Administrative Measures for Patent Priority Examination of China
Amendment to the Administrative Measures for Patent Priority Examination in China
On July 30, 2026, the China National Intellectual Property Administration (“CNIPA”) issued Order No. 85 (https://www.cnipa.gov.cn/art/2026/7/30/art_74_207457.html), amending the Administrative Measures for Patent Priority Examination (hereinafter referred to as the “New Measures”). On the same day, the CNIPA also released an explanatory note regarding the amendment to the Administrative Measures for Patent Priority Examination (https://www.cnipa.gov.cn/art/2026/7/30/art_66_207462.html). The New Measures are divided into six chapters (General Provisions, Applicable Conditions, Request Submission, Review and Examination Procedures, Supervision and Administration, and Supplementary Provisions), comprising a total of 24 articles. Pursuant to Article 24 of the New Measures, the New Measures officially come into effect on September 1, 2026.
The key contents of the New Measures are summarized as follows.
I. Government Agency Responsible for Patent Priority Examination and the Requirement for Recommendation Issued by Competent Government Agencies (Articles 3, 5, 6 and 11)
The New Measures clarify the relevant government agency responsible for patent priority examination. According to Article 3 of the New Measures, in terms of acceptance and examination, requests for patent priority examination shall be accepted and reviewed by the CNIPA.
Article 3 of the New Measures provides that provincial intellectual property offices are responsible for recommendation for patent priority examination requests within their respective jurisdictions. The CNIPA may (also) accept patent priority examination requests recommended by relevant departments under the State Council (i.e., ministries, commissions, and bureaus under the State Council related to the technical field or industry involved in the patent application or case, such as the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, Ministry of Science and Technology, Ministry of Transport, etc.).
Article 3 of the New Measures does not explicitly specify whether all patent priority examination requests must be recommended by the provincial intellectual property offices or the relevant departments under the State Council. However, according to Article 11 of the New Measures (involving the materials to be submitted for the patent priority examination), request forms for patent priority examination of an invention patent application, a utility model patent application, or a design patent application, other than those affected by Item (4), Article 5 of the New Measures (i.e., where for the same subject matter, the applicant first files a patent application in China and then files a corresponding foreign application and files a substantive examination request for the foreign patent application, and the applicant files a priority examination for the Chinese application), must be endorsed with a recommendation by the relevant departments under the State Council or the provincial intellectual property offices. The applicant can also submit materials regarding existing technology or design that may facilitate the expedited examination.
Article 11 of the New Measures further provides that, parties shall submit a request form for priority examination and the necessary materials relevant to the applicable circumstances under Article 5 or Article 6 of the New Measures (requirements for accelerated examination of invalidation cases). The request form for priority examination shall be endorsed with a recommendation issued by the relevant department under the State Council or by the provincial intellectual property office. If a local intellectual property office, the people’s court, or an arbitration institution files a request for priority examination of an invalidation case, a request form for priority examination and a statement of reasons shall be submitted.
Accordingly, other than for the exception provided in Article 11 of the New Measures (i.e., under Item (4), Article 5 of the New Measures, where the same subject matter, the applicant first files a patent application and then files a corresponding foreign application and files a substantive examination request for the foreign patent application, and the applicant files a priority examination for the Chinese application), in principle, a recommendation is generally required when requesting patent priority examination. In addition, according to Article 6 of the New Measures, for invalidation cases arising from patent infringement disputes, if a request for priority examination is directly filed with CNIPA by people’s court, arbitration institution, or the local intellectual property office handling the dispute, no recommendation is required.
II. Scope of Applicable Cases and Requirements for Priority Examination (Articles 4, 5, and 8)
The New Measures include comprehensive and detailed provisions regarding the types of cases for which requests for patent priority examination can be filed, detailed as follows.
A. Types of Patent Applications and Technical Attribute Requirements for Patent Priority Examination (Articles 4 and 5)
1. Applicable Types for Patent Applications
According to Article 4 of the New Measures, requests for patent priority examination for the following types of patent applications are allowed.
(1) Invention patent applications in the substantive examination stage, for which no first office action has been issued
(2) Utility model patent and design patent applications
(3) Reexamination cases for invention patent applications, utility model patent applications, and design patent applications
2. Applicable Technical Attribute
Requirements for Patent Applications
According to Article 5 of the New Measures, for patent applications or reexamination cases with significant innovative value and prospects for transformation and application, patent applicants or reexamination requesters can request priority examination under one of the following circumstances.
(1) Where the patent application involves emerging industries or future industries, or key core technology breakthroughs
(2) Where the patent application involves industries that are key priorities encouraged by provincial or municipal people’s governments
(3) Where the patent applicant or reexamination requester has already implemented industrialization or is prepared for industrialization, or there is evidence that other persons are implementing the invention or creation under patent application
(4) Where a patent application on the same subject matter is first filed in China and a substantive examination request is filed for a corresponding foreign patent application covering the same subject matter
(5) Where there exist other circumstances of significant importance to national or public interest
As to which industries fall under the mentioned technology categories (e.g., emerging industries, future industries, or key core technology breakthroughs), each provincial intellectual property office and relevant department under the State Council will have specific examination standards. An applicant or reexamination requester unable to determine whether the concerned patent application or reexamination case meets the technical attribute requirements under Article 5 of the New Measures can first consult the relevant provincial intellectual property offices and/or relevant departments under the State Council, and then attempt to file the patent priority examination.
B. Applicable Types and Requirements for Priority Examination of Invalidation Cases (Articles 4 and 6)
According to Article 4 of the New Measures, invalidation cases for invention patents, utility model patents, and design patents are all applicable to patent priority examination.
According to Article 6 of the New Measures, a requesting party may request priority examination for an invalidation case under one of the following circumstances.
1. The concerned patent is involved in an infringement dispute, and the party has filed a lawsuit or requested that the local intellectual property office handle the dispute
2. The concerned patent is involved in a patent-related dispute, and a requesting party has filed a complaint with the CNIPA for administrative adjudication or mediation of the patent infringement dispute, the early resolution mechanism for pharmaceutical patent disputes, or mediation of a dispute involving a patent open licensing dispute
3. The concerned patent is in a dispute as to licensing contract, and the concerned party has requested arbitration by an arbitration institution
4. The concerned patent is of significant importance to national or public interest
For circumstances 1 and 3, if the patent priority examination request for an invalidation case is filed by a local intellectual property office or arbitration institution, no recommendation is required to be issued by the provincial intellectual property office or relevant department under the State Council.
C. Circumstances Where Patent Priority Examination Will Not Be Allowed (Article 8)
Article 8 of the New Measures specifies circumstances under which requests for patent priority examination will generally not be granted, which include the following.
1. The patent application is a divisional patent application, and the original application has already been approved for accelerated examination
2. For the same invention, the applicant has filed an invention patent application and a utility model patent application on the same day (Two-tier Filing)
3. The patent application, reexamination case, or invalidation case has been approved for examination procedure for patent priority examination or other forms of accelerated examination
4. For patent applications requesting priority examination under Item (4), Article 5 of the New Measures (i.e., for the same subject matter,the applicant first files a patent application in China and then files a corresponding foreign application and files a substantive examination request for the foreign patent application; and the applicant files a priority examination for the Chinese application), there is evidence indicating that the application lacks a prospect of being granted patent rights
III. Practical Operation of Patent Priority Examination (Articles 9–18)
A. Submission of Priority Examination Requests (Articles 9–12)
1. Applicant
According to Article 9 of the New Measures, patent priority examination can be requested by all applicants, all reexamination requesters, or all patentees of the patent application or relevant patent
2. Method of Request
According to Article 10 of the New Measures, requests for priority examinations shall be submitted electronically to the CNIPA
3. Submission Materials
According to Article 11 of the New Measures, where an applicant files a request for patent priority examination for an invention patent application, a utility model patent application, or a design patent application, the following materials shall be submitted:
i. Request form for patent priority examination (which shall be signed with recommendation issued by the relevant department under the State Council or the provincial intellectual property office. Recommendation is not needed, except as falls under Item (4), Article 5 of the New Measures (please refer to Section I)
ii. Materials relevant to the applicable circumstances under Article 5 of the New Measures (to demonstrate compliance with the technical field and/or other requirements for requesting patent priority examination)
iii. Materials regarding existing technology or design information that may facilitate expedited examination (not mandatory)
For reexamination cases and invalidation cases, materials to be submitted are similar to those needed for requesting patent priority examination requests for patent applications. Where a local intellectual property office, people’s court, or arbitration institution files a request for priority examination of an invalidation case, only a request form for priority examination and a statement of reasons are required, and recommendation for filing the request is not needed.
4. Fees
According to Article 12 of the New Measures, no additional fees shall be charged for requesting patent priority examination.
B. Examination of Priority Examination Requests (Articles 13–15)
According to Article 13 of the New Measures, provincial intellectual property offices shall issue recommendations for requesting patent priority examination in accordance with Articles 4 to 8 of the New Measures and state the reasons for recommendation. If the patent priority examination requester submits false materials or otherwise violates the principles of good faith, the recommendation shall not be issued.
According to Articles 14 and 15 of the New Measures, after the CNIPA accepts a request for patent priority examination, it will review the request form, reasons for recommendation, and all submitted materials. If there are formality defects in the request materials, the priority examination requester shall be allowed to make corrections. Upon review, the CNIPA will issue an opinion on whether to grant patent priority examination and notify the requester. If patent priority examination is granted, the patent case will enter into the priority examination track, and, except for complicated cases, the following time limits shall apply, which will start to run from the date of issuing the notice of patent priority examination.
1. For an invention patent application, the first office action will be issued within 45 days, and the examination of the case will be concluded within 1 year
2. For a utility model patent and design patent application, the examination of the case will be concluded within 2 months
3. For a reexamination case, the examination of the case will be concluded within 7 months
4. For an invalidation case of an invention patent or a utility model patent, the examination of the case will be concluded within 5 months. For an invalidation case involving a design patent, the examination of the case shall be concluded within 4 months.
C. Time Limit for Responding to Notification of Examination Opinion and Termination of Patent Priority Examination (Articles 16–18)
According to Articles 16 and 17 of the New Measures, for a patent application under patent priority examination, the applicant shall file a response to a notification of examination opinion (such as an office action) as soon as possible. For an invention patent application, the applicant shall respond within 1 one month from the date of issuing the notification of examination opinion. For a utility model patent application and a design patent application, the applicant shall respond within 15 days from the date of issuance of the notification of examination opinion.
The CNIPA will terminate the priority examination procedure, revert the application to the regular examination track, and notify the requester of the patent priority examination if the applicant fails to respond within the noted time limit, applies for an extension, makes voluntary amendments after the CNIPA has issued a notice of patent priority examination, or the applicant submits false materials or otherwise violates the principles of good faith.
For patent priority examination requests filed for reexamination cases and invalidation cases, according to Article 18 of the New Measures, if there exists any factor affecting the accelerated examination, the CNIPA will terminate the priority examination and handle the case under the normal examination track. Specifically, in any of the following circumstances occurs, the CNIPA will terminate the priority examination procedure for a reexamination case or an invalidation case.
(1) For a reexamination case, the requester applies for an extension to file a response
(2) After the CNIPA issues a notice of patent priority examination, the invalidation requester supplements evidence and reasons, or the patentee amends the claims in a manner other than deletion
(3) The patent reexamination or invalidation procedure is suspended;
(4) Examination of the concerned case depends on the examination conclusion of another case
(5) The party submits false materials or otherwise violates the principles of good faith
IV. Supervision and Administration of Priority Examination (Articles 19–22)
The New Measures contain several provisions on supervision and administration of the operation of patent priority examination mechanism, summarized as follows.
1. According to Article 19 of the New Measures, the CNIPA’s responsibilities in supervision and administration include the following.
i. Allocating and adjusting the number of patent priority examination cases in each locality based on various factors (such as the situation of the patent priority examination request-related work at the local patent offices, the recommendation and subsequent examination of priority examination requests, the progress and situation of intellectual property protection and utilization, supports for key national industries and major strategies upheld by the government, etc.)
ii. Determining the total number of patent priority examination cases in a coordinated manner based on overall demand and examination capacity
2. Article 20 of the New Measures stipulates the responsibilities of provincial intellectual property offices, including formulating rules for issuing recommendation of patent priority examination requests, clarifying recommendation standards, ensuring fairness, impartiality, openness, and transparency in the recommendation process, which are important in strengthening management and targeted services needed by patent priority examination requesters.
3. Article 21 of the New Measures sets forth requirements for personnel engaged in issuing recommendations, review, examination, and management of patent priority examination. Such personnel shall strictly comply with relevant laws and regulations and shall not engage in dereliction of duty, abuse of power, or malpractice for personal gain.
4. Article 22 of the New Measures stipulates the good faith obligations of patent priority examination requesters and the patent agencies. Where a priority examination requester or a patent agency is found to have violated the principles of good faith, the CNIPA will not accept any patent priority examination requests submitted by such requester or patent agency within one year from the date on which the violation is confirmed.
The New Measures come into effect on September 1, 2026. Until then, the previous measures before amendment for patent priority examination shall remain applicable to relevant patent priority examination requests. Also, in the future, the specific implementation standards for recommending invalidation requests submitted by local intellectual property or arbitration institutions under the New Measures will be closely related to the practical benefits of the patent priority examination system set out in the New Measures. We will continue to monitor the implementation of the New Measures and share updates with our clients in a timely manner. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact us.