成人国产亚洲精品一区二,大鸡吧操黄色视频免费看,99精品热在线观看视频88,精品国产污污免费网站

On September 16, 2025, the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) released the  Global Innovation Index 2025, wherein China has improved its global ranking to the 10^th place, marking its first entry into the global top 10, and firmly leading the 36 upper-middle-income economies, and has climbed 25 places in total since 2013. Additionally, the report shows that China has long maintained a prominent position in innovation output with significant advantages, ranking 5^th in 2025 (up two places from 2024), while its innovation input ranked 19^th globally (up four places from 2024).

(Source: CNIPA)

According to the latest announcement from the Hong Kong Intellectual Property Department, multiple forms related to patents and designs have been updated and officially took effect on October 1, 2025. The specific updates are as follows:

Upon the commencement of the Patents (General) (Amendment) Rules 2025, new versions of the following patent forms have been adopted:

Form P2: for filing counter-statements, oppositions, or related procedures.

Form P6: for filing a request for a grant of a short-term patent.

Form OP1: for filing a request for a grant of an original standard patent.

Upon the commencement of the Registered Designs (Amendment) Rules 2025,  a new version of the following design form has been adopted:

Form D9: for filing a notice of opposition, etc.

A transitional period lasts from October 1, 2025 to January 1, 2026. During this period, except certain specific procedures, the old versions of Forms P2, P6, OP1, and D9, as specified in the announcement dated May 12, 2025, may continue to be used. Upon the end of the transitional period, the new forms will completely replace the old ones.

(Source: UNITALEN)

Intellectual Property Office of Taiwan (TIPO), China launched the trial of the Accelerated Examination Program for Reexamination (AEPRe) on September 1, 2024. Over the course of its one-year trial, the program has been widely recognized by applicants and the intellectual property practitioner community for its fee-free, streamlined procedures and clear eligibility criteria. Based on this, TIPO has announced the continuation of the program's trial.

(Source: UNITALEN)

The technology "gravity compensation type mobile contact line" (patent No.: ZL202020583993.0) independently developed by Lanzhou Xinwei Vehicle Equipment Co., Ltd (hereinafter referred to as "Xinwei") and its supporting patent "force transmission mechanism, cantilever positioning device and mobile contact line" (patent No.: ZL202023195929.4)  were illegally copied by Lanzhou Yinli Electrical Equipment Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Yinli") in the projects of dedicated lines of three major railways in Xinjiang. Facing multiple challenges, including unfavorable patent evaluation reports and invalidation actions filed by the Defendant, Unitalen Law Office employed an integrated "technology + law + strategy" approach that successfully turned the tide, securing a crucial victory for Xinwei.

Core Disputes and Breakthroughs

Initially, the Evaluation Reports of Patent for Utility Model issued by the CNIPA stated that the patents involved "lacked inventiveness", directly threatening the validity of the patents. After accepting the entrustment, Unitalen's attorney team promptly initiated a reconsideration procedure and successfully persuaded the CNIPA to correct the evaluation reports, thereby ultimately affirming the inventiveness of the involved patents and removing the fundamental obstacles to subsequent patent enforcement.

During the trial of the infringement litigation, Yinli, the Defendant, filed an invalidation request with the Reexamination and Invalidation Department of the CNIPA. Unitalen's attorney team anticipated this risk and proactively made crucial amendments to the patent claims, maintaining the patents' validity while expanding their scope of protection. Both invalidation decisions upheld the patents' validity under the amended claims.

Although the invalidation decision was still pending, given that the scope of protection of claims had changed, Lanzhou Intermediate Court determined that the accused infringing products fell within the scope of protection of the amended claims of patent ZL202020583993.0 and constituted infringement.

Lanzhou Intermediate Court also found that the accused infringing products fell within the scope of protection of patent ZL202023195929.4 and constituted infringement. In the second instance, Yinli filed a request for invalidation, but the invalidation decision upheld the patent's validity, providing strong support for the patentee to proceed with the infringement litigation.

Meanwhile, to prevent the Defendant from transferring assets and evading compensation, Unitalen's attorney team applied to the Lanzhou Intermediate Court for property preservation during the litigation, successfully freezing several of the Defendant's bank accounts and maximizing protection of the client's legitimate rights.

Apart from civil litigation, Xinwei also filed an administrative request for investigating and prosecuting patent infringement with the Lanzhou Intellectual Property Office. Unitalen's attorney team assisted the administrative authority in determining that the mobile contact line product manufactured by Yinli fell entirely within the scope of protection of patent No. ZL202023195929.4, and that Yinli's acts of manufacture and sales constituted patent infringement. Finally, the Lanzhou Intellectual Property Office ordered Yinli to cease infringement immediately.  This established a powerful deterrent through dual-track protection combining judicial and administrative measures.

Case Highlights

The court ascertained that the Defendant's acts of making, selling, and offering to sell constituted patent infringement and ordered an immediate cessation of infringement. The court also supported the Plaintiff's claim for RMB 2.04 million in economic compensation and awarded over RMB 160,000 for reasonable enforcement expenses. This case serves as a typical example of "successful dual track enforcement through judicial and administrative measures" in the field of railway electrification equipment, highlighting the comprehensive advantages of intellectual property protection for enterprises.

Industry Insights

This case provides a model for technology companies in patent enforcement. In terms of patent portfolio strategy, core patents should establish a "moat of claims" and leave room for amendments. In risk management, when facing unfavorable evaluation reports, companies should take proactive steps, such as reconsideration and invalidation procedures, to reverse unfavorable outcomes. In terms of litigation strategy, administrative investigation and prosecution, and civil litigation should be conducted in parallel to maximize enforcement efficiency and deterrence. Pre-emptive property preservation combined with precise technical feature comparisons forms a comprehensive litigation system that "integrates offensive and defensive strategies".

Case Brief

The Plaintiff Shu X (Beijing) Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Shu X"), having lawfully obtained authorization, collected a Mandarin Chinese speech dataset totaling 1,505 hours involved in the case and registered it with a Data Intellectual Property Registration Certificate. Shu X claimed that the Defendant Yin X (Shanghai) Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Yin X") publicly released a 200-hour subset of Shu X's dataset (hereinafter referred to as the "involved dataset") without permission, constituting unfair competition.

The court of first instance ruled that the dataset involved in the case constituted a trade secret, and Yin X's disclosure and use of it infringed Shu X's trade secret, ordering compensation of RMB 102,300. Yin X appealed against the judgment.

The court of second instance held that the Data Intellectual Property Registration Certificate serves as preliminary evidence of Shu X's lawful ownership and legitimate acquisition of the dataset. Although the involved dataset failed to meet the criteria for a trade secret due to its disclosure and also failed to meet the criteria for a compilation, it comprised commercially valuable data entries formed through significant investment in technology, capital, and labor by Shu X, and its legitimate interests are protected by the Anti-Unfair Competition Law. Data users must comply with the terms of open-source licenses when using open-source data. Yin X failed to comply with the relevant license, thereby violating commercial ethics, harming Shu X's interests and competitive market order, and violating Article 2 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law. Accordingly, the court of second instance adjusted the finding on trade secrets but upheld the ruling of the court of first instance.

Typical Significance

This case is the first to affirm the preliminary evidentiary effect of Data Intellectual Property Registration Certificates on rights ownership and acquisition legitimacy and to actively address theoretical and practical concerns by reasonably and accurately defining the rights and obligations of all participants in the data ecosystem. The final judgment aligns with national policy objectives to promote data circulation and utilization while maintaining fair competition in the data services sector.

(Source: Beijing Court 2024 Top 10 IP Judicial Protection Cases)

Case Brief

State Administration for Market Regulation (the Defendant, hereinafter referred to as SAMR) successively received the market concentration declaration materials submitted by both Tuo X Xi Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. (the Plaintiff, hereinafter referred to as Tuo X Xi) and Xian X Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. (the Third Party, hereinafter referred to as Xian X) regarding Xian X's acquisition of equity in Tuo X Xi. After reviewing and evaluating the materials, SAMR concluded that the involved concentration did not meet the declaration threshold but might have the effect of excluding or restricting competition in the Chinese market for batroxobin injection. Xian X proposed commitments to impose restrictive conditions on the concentration. Considering that these commitments could effectively mitigate adverse effects on competition and meet the criteria for conditional approval under China's  Anti-Monopoly Law and other relevant regulations, SAMR approved the concentration under additional restrictive conditions. Tuo X Xi disagreed and filed for administrative reconsideration, but SAMR upheld its original decision in the reconsideration decision. Tuo X Xi disagreed with the reconsideration decision and filed a lawsuit.

The court of first instance concluded that the present case concerned a "voluntary declaration" in which the declaration threshold was not met, allowing the regulatory authority to conduct a substantive review of concentration activities that "might have the effect of excluding or restricting competition". The review decision imposed legal obligations on the post-concentration declarant Tuo X Xi, and thus Tuo X Xi had the standing to file an administrative lawsuit. The objective of the concentration review and enforcement of undertakings primarily lies in addressing competition issues arising from the concentration, rather than pre-existing competition issues. The competitive landscape in the market for batroxobin injection existed before the concentration and was not the focus of the review in this case. The State Council's anti-monopoly regulatory authority does not automatically prohibit concentrations that cause or might cause exclusionary or restrictive effects. After assessment, the proposed commitments were effective, feasible, and timely, and could effectively mitigate the negative impact of concentration on competition. The sued decision and the reconsideration decision were lawful.  Based on this, the court dismissed Tuo X Xi's claims. No appeals were filed after the first-instance judgment, and the judgment has entered into force.

Typical Significance

As the first administrative lawsuit in China against an administrative reconsideration decision on the declaration of concentrations between undertakings, the present case provides explicit clarification on issues, including whether the anti-monopoly administrative behavior involved is subject to litigation, the scope of review of concentrations between undertakings, and the evaluation criteria for additional restrictive conditions. It also provides clear guidance for both the declaring parties of concentrations and the anti-monopoly regulatory authority, and serves as a firm reference for the adjudication of similar cases.

(Source: Beijing Court 2024 Top 10 IP Judicial Protection Cases)

From September 13 to 16, 2025, the 128^th World Intellectual Property Congress of the International Association for the Protection of Intellectual Property (AIPPI) was grandly held in Yokohama, Japan. Unitalen, as a member of AIPPI, sent a delegation to participate deeply in this event. The delegation included Chief Vice President Dr. Deshan Li, Vice-President Yang Li, as well as partners, counsels, and attorneys, including Ray Lei Zhao, Yi Zheng, Dr. Wei Pan, Bing Li, Peichao Wang, Xiaodan Wang, Gordiano, and Junjie Zhang.

Under the theme "IP-driven Global Innovation and Sustainable Development", this year's congress attracted over 3,000 intellectual property experts, scholars, and industry leaders from more than 120 countries and regions. Unitalen's Vice President Dr. Deshan Li, as a council member of the AIPPI China National Group, attended the Plenary Session of the Executive Committee and voted on various AIPPI resolutions.

On September 19, 2025, the Beijing Federation of Industry & Commerce officially released the "2025 Beijing Top 100 Private Enterprises List". Unitalen Attorneys at Law ranked in the "Beijing Top 100 Private Enterprises in Cultural Industry" list, marking its third consecutive year of recognition. This year, Unitalen Attorneys at Law secured 30^th place, representing a significant rise of 32 places from the previous year.

From September 20 to 21, 2025 (local time), the Bavarian International Trademark Association (BITMA) held its 2025 Annual Conference in Munich, Germany, bringing together law firm partners from multiple countries and regions as well as representatives from local German enterprises. Unitalen partner Ray Lei Zhao was invited to attend the conference and delivered a keynote speech titled "Assessment of Likelihood of Confusion in Trademarks in Chinese Judicial Practice".