Introduction
The landscape of Chinese intellectual property took a definitive turn on January 1, 2026. With the official implementation of the revised “Patent Examination Guidelines“ by the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA), a new era of patent governance has begun. These revisions are not merely administrative tweaks; they represent a strategic offensive against procedural abuse and a robust defense of the principle of good faith. By tightening the reigns on requester qualifications, expanding the barriers against repetitive filings, and streamlining the mechanics of claim modifications, the CNIPA is signaling that the era of “tactical harassment” through patent invalidation is coming to a close.
I. Authenticity Over Anonymity: The End of the “Straw Man” Strategy
Historically, the patent invalidation process in China was governed by a broad interpretation of Article 45 of the Patent Law, allowing “any entity or individual” to file a request. While this democratisation encouraged public oversight, it also birthed the “straw man” strategy, a tactic where competitors used fabricated identities or uninvolved third parties to hide their involvement and disrupt a patent holder’s operations.
Key Regulatory Changes:
- Verification of Genuine Intent: Requesters must now demonstrate a bona fide intent to invalidate. Requests filed under false names, forged signatures, or unauthorized identities will be rejected outright.
- Identity Verification: The CNIPA now has the authority to require petitioners to appear in person or submit rigorous documentation to verify their identity and authorization.
This shift effectively codifies the principle of integrity (good faith). The 2026 CNIPA revisions mark a decisive shift from procedural complexity to principled efficiency. By stripping away the mask of anonymity, the CNIPA protects patent holders from malicious “shadow” litigation and ensures that the administrative machinery is only activated for legitimate disputes.
II. Strengthening Res Judicata: Closing the Loophole on Repeated Requests
One of the most significant burdens for patent holders has been the “war of attrition” facing multiple invalidation requests that were technically different but substantively identical. Previously, the “non bis in idem” (not twice for the same thing) principle was applied narrowly to “identical” reasons and evidence.
Key Regulatory Changes:
- Broadened Scope: The bar for refiling now covers reasons and evidence that are “identical or substantially identical.”
- Substance Over Form: Minor linguistic changes or cosmetic adjustments to evidence that do not alter the core technical or legal argument will no longer be sufficient to bypass the “non bis in idem” rule.
This expansion acts as a powerful shield for the stability of patent rights. It forces challengers to put their best foot forward in the initial filing, preventing them from “saving” evidence for a second or third attack. For the CNIPA, it dramatically reduces the repetitive consumption of administrative resources.
III. Precision in Modifications: Clearer Expectations for Patent Holders
The battle for a patent’s life often hinges on how a patent holder can “save” it through amendments during the invalidation process. The 2026 Guidelines bring much-needed order to this often chaotic exchange of documents.
Key Regulatory Changes:
- The “Last Version” Rule: If a patent holder submits multiple versions of amended claims within the statutory period, the CNIPA will only examine the last version submitted. All prior versions are automatically discarded.
- Compulsory Documentation: Every modification must now be accompanied by a “full replacement page” and a “modification comparison table.”
These rules eliminate the ambiguity of “drifting” claims. Requesters can now focus their arguments on a single, definitive target, while examiners are spared the confusion of cross-referencing multiple iterations of text. It places a premium on a patent holder’s ability to conduct a “one-and-done” strategic modification.
Conclusion
The 2026 revisions to the CNIPA Patent Examination Guidelines mark a maturation of China’s IP system. By balancing procedural fairness with administrative efficiency, the new rules create a more predictable environment for both innovators and challengers. For the Patent Holder, these changes offer a respite from malicious “straw man” attacks and the exhaustion of endless repeat filings. For the Requester, the path forward is clearer but more demanding, requiring higher-quality evidence and more meticulous legal strategy from the outset. Ultimately, these optimizations ensure that the patent invalidation process serves its true purpose: maintaining the purity of the patent registry while fostering a culture of genuine innovation.
Written By: Adv. Archana Shukla, Suprana Chakraborty (Intern)
