Starting January 1, 2026, the newly revised "Patent Examination Guidelines" by the Chinese National Intellectual Property Administration (hereinafter refer to “CNIPA”) will officially take effect, introducing substantial adjustments to the patent invalidation declaration procedures. These modifications not only address issues such as procedural abuse and malicious operations observed in recent years but also reflect the CNIPA's intention to optimize the system in terms of procedural fairness and efficiency.

I. Stricter Examination of Requester Qualifications, Excluding Anonymous and False Requests

Key Changes: While the principle that "any entity or individual may file" an invalidation declaration request remains in accordance with Article 45 of the Patent Law, the new guidelines now require that the requester must act based on genuine intent. In the past, cases have arisen where invalidation declarations were filed under someone else's name, accompanied by forged signatures, request forms, or authorization documents. The new guidelines clearly stipulate that invalidation requests not based on the requester’s genuine intent, such as those using a false name or forged signature, will not be accepted. This change effectively curbs the previously common "straw man" strategy, where invalidation requests were filed using fabricated or uninformed third-party identities to conceal the true requester and disrupt competitors (patent holders).

Background and Impact: The malicious use of "straw man" strategies to disrupt competitive order was prevalent in the past, imposing unnecessary burdens on patent holders and wasting examination resources. The new regulations explicitly incorporate the principle of integrity, empowering the CNIPA to exclude false entities, thereby maintaining the system's credibility and curbing the malicious use of invalidation requests at the source.

Practical Advice: Requesters of invalidation declarations must ensure that their qualifications and intent are genuine, and that authorization documents are valid.

II. Expansion of "Non bis in idem" Scope, Reducing Room for Repeated Requests

Key Changes: Under the previous guidelines, invalidation declarations could not be filed based on "identical" reasons. The revised version now extends this to "identical or substantially identical" reasons and evidence. This means that minor modifications to evidence or reasons, without substantial changes in core content, will no longer constitute a new valid request.

Purpose of the Regulation: This adjustment extends the boundaries of "non bis in idem" from merely "identical" to "substantially identical," strengthening the res judicata effect of invalid decisions, reducing procedural harassment for patent holders due to repeated invalidation requests, and avoiding repetitive consumption of administrative resources.

Industry Impact:

• Patent holders will face fewer instances of being forced to respond to repetitive disputes over the same issues.

• Requesters will need to be more meticulous in preparing their initial filings to ensure higher success rates.

Practical Advice:

• Conduct a comprehensive evaluation of evidence before filing an invalidation request to avoid rejection due to "substantial repetition."

• Identify genuinely new legal deficiencies in technical solutions or claims to establish valid grounds for an invalidation request.

III. Detailed Rules for Text Submission Modifications, Clearer Examination Expectations

Key Changes: The new regulations require patent holders to submit a "full replacement page" and a "modification comparison table" when amending claims during invalidation proceedings. If multiple versions are submitted within the modification period, the last submitted version will be reviewed, and others will not be examined.

Significance of the Regulation: This provision enhances the transparency of modification actions, reduces procedural delays caused by multiple versions, and provides a clear examination benchmark for invalidity requesters and examiners.

Practical Advice:

• Patent holders should complete unified and accurate modifications of claims within the statutory period, ensuring consistency between the comparison table and replacement text.

• Thoroughly evaluate multiple modification plans to ensure the final submitted text is complete and error-free, avoiding risks where the "last text" cannot be corrected.

Conclusion: Balancing Integrity and Efficiency, Dual Constraints of System Optimization

The recent revision of the "Patent Examination Guidelines" introduces stricter requirements for requester qualifications and evidence to combat the malicious use of procedural rights. At the same time, it enhances the quality and efficiency of invalidation examinations through clearer rules for text modifications and a strengthened "non bis in idem" principle.

These changes not only provide stronger protection for the legitimate rights of patent holders but also promote the standardization and efficiency of intellectual property examination procedures. With the reinforcement of the principle of good faith and the rational allocation of administrative resources, invalidation procedures will become more efficient and fairer. This injects new vitality into the development of China's intellectual property protection system and provides a solid legal foundation for fostering innovation in a technology-driven society.