The revisions will take effect on 1 January 2026. This article outlines critical changes and practical suggestions for foreign applicants seeking patent protection in China, based on the interpretation document of the revised 2025 Patent Examination Guidelines.

I. Core procedural changes (directly affect application strategies)

1. Significant tightening of the “Same-Day Dual Filing” system

Changes: Starting from January 1, 2026, where the same applicant to file a utility model and an invention patent application in parallel for the same invention on the same day:

-the applicant shall only be required to abandon the utility model patent to secure the grant of the invention patent

- The previous option of amending the invention patent application to differentiate its protection scope from that of the utility model has been eliminated.

Impact:

- Applicants can no longer rely on amending the claims of the invention application to avoid duplication of authorization, they can only definitely abandon the utility model before the invention patent is granted. 

- Applicants shall make a strategic plan at the time of filing, evaluate the protection value of invention patents and utility model patents. 

- Applicants must make respective statements in each application indicating that another patent application for the same invention has been filed on the same day, or which the applications will be directly regarded as duplicate authorization.

2. Stricter rules for priority claims in divisional applications

Changes: where the original application claims priority but the divisional application fails to declare the priority claim in the request form while filing:

- The priority claim will be directly deemed not to have been made, and a notification will be issued by the examiner.

- The applicant may subsequently request restoring rights within the time limit under requirements.

Impact:

- Applicants shall especially care about the completeness and accuracy of priority claims when filing divisional applications.

- Omission of the declaration will lead to loss of priority rights, may lose the prior advantage.

3. Refund mechanism adjustment: proactive refunds to returning based on request

Changes:

- The Patent Office has cancelled proactive refunds and all parties shall request a refund of the fee. 

- A refund condition has been newly added for divisional applications that have not entered the substantive examination phase.

Impact:

- Applicants shall actively monitor fee status and submit refund requests in time.

- Refund procedure may be delayed for incomplete applicant information.

II. Emerging technology fields: strict compliance and high-quality requirements

4. Ethical and data compliance examination of patents involving AI or Big Data

Newly added: explicit examination in accordance with Article 5, Paragraph 1 of the Patent Law (content that violates the law, social morality, or harms the public interest)

- Data collection: It must comply with Personal Information Protection Law of China, and the legality or compliance of the data acquisition should be demonstrated (e.g., obtaining individual’s separate consent). 

- Algorithm ethics: Algorithmic discrimination is prohibited. Decision-making rules that violate social morality are not allowed.

 Examination examples:   

- [Example 1] covert filming at facial recognition in shopping mall for targeted marketing is rejected for violating the Personal Information Protection Law. 

- [Example 2] decision-making model for autonomous driving to determine protected object based on pedestrian’s gender and age is rejected for violating social morality.

Impact:   

- Detailed compliance explanations should be provided when filing AI patent applications related to user data or personal information.

- Foreign data compliance guidelines (e.g., GDPR) must be complied with Chinese legal requirements rather directly applicable. 

- Ethical examination standards are characterized with China’s law and culture.

5. Highly raised requirements for AI patent specification drafting 

Newly added requirements: 

- Model construction/training: modules, layers, connection relationships, training steps, parameters, etc. must be clearly recorded.

- Model application: how the model integrates with specific fields, input/output data settings, and their inherent correlations must be clearly recorded.

Examination example: 

- [Example 21] A technical solution failing to specify which blood indicators and facial features relate with cancer prediction is rejected due to insufficient disclosure.

Impact: 

- "Black box" AI inventions are unlikely to meet the sufficiency of disclosure requirement.

- Technical details must be provided to prove that a person skilled in the art can implement the solution.

Recommendations: 

- Specific implements should be provided in the specification, including training datasets features, model structure diagrams, parameter settings tables, etc.

- Technical explanations for the correlations between input and output data should be provided, rather than only functional descriptions.

- Supplementary materials such as algorithm flowcharts or pseudocode shall be considered to submit.

6. Explicit rules for invention patent applications containing bitstreams

Changes:

- Pure bitstreams do not qualify as patentable subject matter (claimed as rules for intellectual activities)

- Methods for storing or transmitting bitstreams: two steps "using video encoding methods" and "storing or transmitting the bitstream" should be included.

- Computer-readable storage medium: it shall be drafted as the format of "medium + program or instructions + bitstream + the bitstream executed by a processor".

Impact: 

- Patent drafting in the fields of video encoding and streaming media must strictly adhere to formatting requirements.

- The protection scope of product claims is explicitly limited.

Suggestions: 

- Drafting templates as the standard provided in the guidelines.

- Ensuring method claims include encoding steps to avoid being deemed pure data storage.

III. Biotechnology: expansion of plant variety protection scope

7. Clarified definition and adjusted protection scope of “plant variety"

Changes: 

- Definition: A plant variety means artificially bred or improved + consistent morphological and biological characteristics + relatively stable genetic traits.

- Patentability: Plant groups without meeting the consistency and stability requirements are not deemed as plant varieties and may be granted for patent rights.

- Wild Plants: Naturally wild plants without technical processing are classified as scientific discoveries and are not patentable. However, wild plants that are artificially selected and bred or improved with industrial value may be patentable.

Impact: 

- Benefits: genetically modified plants and gene-edited plants that do not meet the standards of consistency for plant varieties may be eligible for patent protection.

- Challenges: only when demonstrating the plant group’s lack of consistency and stability can exclusion clause of plant variety be avoided.

Suggestions:

- For broadly defined plant groups (e.g., "rice containing a specific gene"), their definition of complete plant structures or entire genomes shall be avoided.

- Describing genetic diversity within the group in the specification to demonstrate its lack of consistency.

- For genetically modified plants, evidence shall be provided to show the unstable traits of the plant group.

IV. Optimization of dispute resolution procedures 

8. Refinement of invalidation procedure rules

Changes: 

- "Double Jeopardy" principle: it’s explicitly defined as "identical or substantially identical reasons and evidence" to prevent requesters from repeatedly filing invalidation claims by merely changing expression.

- Qualifications of requester: Requests made under ungenuine intent like misused identities without permission will not be accepted (newly added situation for refusal).

- Amendment Submission: The patentee amends the claims, he/she shall submit the full replacement pages and a comparison table of the amendments. If multiple amended texts submitted by the patentee in the same invalidation request hearing proceedings, the last amended text shall prevail.

Impact: 

- Benefit: malicious invalidation requests may be prevented with reducing litigations.

- Challenge: amendments to claims during invalidation proceedings must be more standardized; otherwise, they may not be accepted.

Suggestions:

- As a patentee, prepare standardized amendment templates in advance.

- As an invalidation requester, ensure the initial request is substantiated with sufficient reasons and evidence to avoid being deemed "substantively identical" in subsequent attempts.

9 Reexamination procedures and patent term extension

New introduction: 

- Delays resulting from reexamination proceedings where the rejection decision is canceled based on new reasons or evidence submitted by the applicant for reexamination are deemed as "reasonable delays" without qualification for patent term extension.

Impact: 

- Applicants should try to state arguments and submit evidence comprehensively during substantive examination.

- Preserving critical evidence until the reexamination stage may result in loss of patent term adjustment.

V. Special provisions for international applications 

10. Key points for PCT applications entering the Chinese national phase 

Changes: 

- Priority right transfer proof: it must be signed or sealed by "all applicants of the prior application" (rather than a generalized "transferor").

- Certificate information: the information "on the day of filing" recorded on the patent certificate refers to the information when the international application enters the Chinese national phase.

Impact: 

- Making sure that priority right transfer documents are signed by all original applicants.

- Ensuring the interpretation of certificate information consistent with Chinese legal concepts.