Chang Tsi Insights丨Originality Statements and Revocation under China's Revised IC Layout-Design Regulation

The revised Regulation on the Protection of Layout-Designs of Integrated Circuits (State Council Decree No. 842) takes effect on October 15, 2026. This note focuses on the originality statement (Arts. 22–24 and 34) and the revocation procedure (Arts. 30–31). Read together, they move the substantive assessment of originality from registration to post-grant proceedings, with direct consequences for filing, maintenance, licensing and enforcement.

1. Allocation of review: formal at registration, substantive after grant

Applications must be based on genuine creative activity (Art. 20). The originality statement is a mandatory filing document and must identify the original design regions, design points and corresponding functions, with a specific explanation where originality lies in the design as a whole (Arts. 22 and 24). The copies or drawings must clearly show the original parts (Art. 23).

Preliminary examination covers only obvious non-compliance with Articles 3(1)(i)–(ii), 7, 20, 23 and 24 (Art. 27). Article 6, the substantive originality standard, is not on that list, yet any person may rely on it to request revocation after grant (Art. 30(2)–(3)). A revoked right is deemed never to have existed (Art. 31).

Revocation decisions are subject to judicial review (Art. 30(4)); procedural details await the Implementing Rules.

2. The originality statement and the scope of protection

Under Article 34, the scope of protection is determined by the registered copies or drawings, and the statement may be used to interpret originality. The structure resembles Article 64(1) of the Patent Law, except that the drawings define the scope and the statement is interpretive only.

Infringement, however, extends to copying any original part of a protected design (Arts. 11 and 44). In partial-copying disputes, whether the copied part is original is decisive, and the statement is the right holder's own written account on that point. Its practical weight should not be underestimated. Drafters should note:

• Over-inclusion: declaring commonplace elements, such as standard cells, I/O pad rings or PDK device layouts, invites an Article 6 challenge; asserting whole-design originality without a specific explanation carries similar risk.
• Under-inclusion: declaring only some regions allows an alleged infringer to argue that undeclared parts are not original.
• Evidence: each declared point should be traceable to dated design records, the principal evidence of independent and genuine creation in revocation proceedings.

In our view, a layered statement is preferable: first a specific explanation of the originality of the combination as a whole (Arts. 6(2) and 24(2)), then the design points and functions of each key region.

3. Revocation risk and retroactive effect

Likely requesters include alleged infringers (particularly now that Article 46 allows punitive damages of one to five times the base amount), competitors in tenders and qualification reviews, and licensees disputing royalties. After announcement, the public may inspect paper copies of the drawings (Art. 50), copying for evaluation and analysis is permitted (Art. 37), and earlier chips, literature and standard-cell libraries may all evidence commonplace design.

Retroactive effect. Article 47 of the Patent Law shields judgments already enforced and licence and assignment contracts already performed from the retroactive effect of invalidation. The Regulation has no equivalent. Whether courts will apply the patent rule by analogy, or order restitution of royalties and damages, remains an open question.

Legacy registrations. The Regulation contains no transitional provision. Under the non-retroactivity principle in Article 104 of the Legislation Law, the new requirements in Articles 23 and 24 arguably should not apply to registrations granted under the 2001 Regulation, but whether practice will follow is not yet clear. Substantive originality, by contrast, was already a ground for ex officio revocation under Article 20 of the 2001 Regulation; the change is that any person may now invoke it.

4. Practical recommendations

• Applicants: prepare a layered statement jointly with design engineers and counsel, excluding commonplace elements; keep design records mapped to each declared point; monitor how the Implementing Rules reconcile Article 23 with the rules on confidential information.
• Right holders: before enforcement, licensing or pledge, assess validity against Articles 6, 17, 20 and 26; in licence agreements, allocate the risk of revocation and the treatment of royalties already paid.
• Parties facing an assertion: evaluate a revocation request early, built on commonplace-design evidence; also consider the independent-creation exception (Art. 37) and the innocent-acquisition rule (Art. 47).

The accompanying Implementing Rules and Examination and Enforcement Guidelines remain at the public-comment stage and may further clarify these rules; we will continue to track developments.