业界新闻：
In this issue:
中国拥有的全球百强创新集群数量稳居全球第一，深圳—香港—广州集群跃居全球之首
China Steadily Maintains Its First Ranking in the World by the Number of Global Top 100 Innovation Clusters, and the Shenzhen-Hong Kong-Guangzhou Cluster Hits the Top of the World
9月1日下午，世界知识产权组织（WIPO）在香港发布2025年全球百强创新集群排名，中国拥有的全球百强创新集群数量连续第三年位居全球第一，深圳—香港—广州集群跃居全球之首，这也是中国单个创新集群首次登顶全球首位。
On the afternoon of September 1, the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) released the 2025 global top 100 innovation clusters ranking in Hong Kong. China has ranked first in the world for the third consecutive year in terms of the number of global top 100 innovation clusters, and the Shenzhen-Hong Kong-Guangzhou cluster has risen to the global top spot, marking the first time a Chinese innovation cluster has reached the global top position.
全球创新集群百强榜中，中国共有24个集群上榜，随后依次为美国（22个）、德国（7个）、英国（4个）和印度（4个）。全球创新集群前5位和前15位排行榜中，中国分别占据2个和5个，数量均位居全球首位。宁波（93位）、宁德集群（99位）均为首次进入全球百强创新集群排行榜。
Among the global top 100 innovation clusters, China has a total of 24 clusters on the list, followed by the United States (22), Germany (7), the United Kingdom (4), and India (4). In the rankings of the world's top 5 and top 15 innovation clusters, China accounts for 2 and 5 clusters respectively, leading the world in both counts. The Ningbo cluster (ranked 93rd) and the Ningde cluster (ranked 99rd) have made their debuts on the global top 100 innovation clusters list.
（来源：中国国家知识产权局政务微信）
(Source: CNIPA Official WeChat Account)
《中国国家知识产权局2024年度报告》发布
The 2024 Annual Report of the CNIPA Is Released
近日，中国国家知识产权局发布了《国家知识产权局2024年度报告》。其中，国家知识产权局局长申长雨在局长致辞中提到，知识产权国际合作深化拓展。高规格举办第三届“一带一路”知识产权高级别会议，达成一系列新的合作项目。推动世界知识产权组织成功缔结《产权组织知识产权、遗传资源和相关传统知识条约》与《利雅得外观设计法条约》。成功举办中欧、中美、中英、中法、中日韩等局长会议，与有关方面签署39份新的合作协议。深度参与中美欧日韩、中国—东盟、中非等机制性合作。推动金砖国家知识产权合作升级扩容。持续做好中欧地理标志协定第二批产品清单生效准备。专利审查高速路（PPH）合作网络覆盖84个国家等等。
Recently, the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) released the 2024 Annual Report of the CNIPA. In the report, SHEN Changyu, Commissioner of the CNIPA, noted in his message that international cooperation in intellectual property (IP) has been deepened and expanded. Highlights in this regard include the following: (1) The Third Belt and Road High-Level Conference on Intellectual Property was held at a high standard, with a series of new cooperation projects reached. (2) CNIPA played a pivotal role in facilitating the successful conclusion of the WIPO Treaty on Intellectual Property, Genetic Resources, and Associated Traditional Knowledge and the Riyadh Design Law Treaty by the WIPO. (3) The commissioner-level meetings between the CNIPA and its counterparts from the European Union (EU), the United States, the United Kingdom, France, as well as the China-Japan-ROK mechanism were successfully held, and 39 new cooperation agreements were signed with relevant parties. (4) CNIPA actively engaged in institutional cooperation mechanisms, including the China-US-EU-Japan-ROK cooperation, China-ASEAN cooperation, and China-Africa cooperation. (5) CNIPA promoted the upgrading and expansion of cooperation on intellectual property among BRICS countries. (6) Preparations for the entry into force of the second batch of product listings under the China-EU Geographical Indications Agreement are well underway. (7) The Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) cooperation network now covers 84 countries, among other achievements.
Attachment: the 2024 Annual Report of the CNIPA
（来源：中国国家知识产权局）
(Source: CNIPA)
中国香港与世界知识产权组织签署数据库谅解备忘录
Hong Kong and the WIPO Signed a Memorandum of Understanding on Database
中国香港特区政府9月1日与世界知识产权组织(WIPO)签署有关“WIPO Lex裁判文书”数据库的谅解备忘录。
On September 1, the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) of China signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) regarding the "WIPO Lex Judgments" database.
该数据库提供免费和公开的全球重要知识产权相关司法判决。根据谅解备忘录，香港将向数据库提供司法机构在知识产权领域中具指导性的判决，便利国际知识产权界取得相关判决，同时彰显香港知识产权司法水平。
The database provides free, open access to leading judicial decisions relating to IP from around the world. Under the MOU, Hong Kong will contribute leading IP judgments from the Judiciary to the database, facilitating the international IP community's access to such judgments, while also demonstrating Hong Kong's IP-related judicial expertise.
（来源：新华社）
(Source: Xinhua News Agency)
典型案例：
Cases in Spotlight:
集佳代理涉及预防和治疗血栓的药品专利纠纷早期解决机制行政裁决案并取得胜利
Unitalen Achieves Victory in Administrative Adjudication Case Concerning the Early Resolution Mechanism for Drug Patent Disputes Involving Prevention and Treatment of Thrombosis
基本案情
Case Brief
被请求人系中外合资的企业，主营医药中间体、原料药和成品药的研发、生产与销售，产品类别包括心血管药物、神经系统药物以及抗肿瘤药物等。
The respondent is a Sino-foreign joint venture enterprise primarily engaged in the research and development, production, and sales of pharmaceutical intermediates, active pharmaceutical ingredients, and finished drugs. Its product categories include cardiovascular drugs, nervous system drugs, and anti-tumor drugs.
日本第一三共株式会社（以下简称“第一三共株式会社”）认为被请求人申请注册的涉及预防和治疗血栓药品的技术方案落入其名称为“药物组合物”的涉案专利的保护范围，以及被请求人提交的药品技术方案资料真实性和完整性不足，基于此，根据《专利法》和《药品专利纠纷早期解决机制行政裁决办法》提出了药品专利纠纷行政裁决请求。
Daiichi Sankyo Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as "Daiichi Sankyo") alleges that the technical solution for the medication related to thrombosis prevention and treatment, which was applied for registration by the respondent, falls within the scope of protection of the involved patent titled "Pharmaceutical Composition". Additionally, Daiichi Sankyo contends that the technical solution documentation for the medication submitted by the respondent is insufficient in terms of authenticity and completeness. Based on this, Daiichi Sankyo has filed a request for administrative adjudication regarding drug patent disputes in accordance with the Patent Law and the Administrative Adjudication Measures on the Early Resolution Mechanism for Drug Patent Disputes.
接受被请求人委托后，集佳组成药物专利争议小组，仔细地研究了请求人提交的请求书和证据材料，并查阅了涉案专利的审查历史以及相关药品的申报和审批情况。在此基础上，小组成员明确指出，根据针对涉案专利在先作出的无效决定，由于在无效程序中存在权利要求修改，不应以涉案专利授权的权利要求，而应以无效决定中维持有效的权利要求2和11为准，来判断药品技术方案中是否落入涉案专利保护范围，继而小组成员详细陈述了药品技术方案中的“淀粉水解寡糖”与涉案专利中的“甘露糖醇”既不相同也不等同。
After accepting the respondent's commission, Unitalen formed a drug patent dispute team that meticulously examined the petition and evidentiary materials submitted by the petitioner, and reviewed the examination history of the involved patent and the filing and approval status of the relevant drugs. On this basis, the team explicitly pointed out that, in light of a prior invalidation decision concerning the involved patent, due to the amendments to claims in the invalidation procedure, the judgment of whether the technical solution for the medication falls within the scope of protection of the involved patent should not be based on the granted claims of the involved patent, but on claims 2 and 11 which were upheld as valid in the invalidation decision. Subsequently, the team elaborated that the "starch hydrolysis oligosaccharides" in the technical solution for the medication were neither identical nor equivalent to the "mannitol" specified in the involved patent.
针对有关证据，尤其是针对药品的申报材料，小组成员向合议组特别申明该些证据属于保密材料，当事各方对于获知的信息承担严格保密义务。同时，基于涉案专利的审查历史，小组成员认为涉案专利在实质审查过程中修改了权利要求，且在权利要求中已经限定了具体的糖醇，故根据“禁止反悔”原则，第一三共株式会社不应再将其他糖醇，甚至与糖醇完全不同的物质再引入保护范围。与此同时，小组成员还与各方积极沟通，准备了补充实验数据以证明药品技术方案与涉案专利本质上不同。此外，小组成员也提交了被请求人股东在欧洲的专利申请以及公知常识证据佐证抗辩主张。
Regarding the relevant evidence, especially the filing materials for drugs, the team specifically stated to the collegial panel that the said evidence constitutes confidential materials, and all involved parties bear strict obligations to keep the information they obtain confidential. At the same time, based on the examination history of the involved patent, the team argued that the claims of the involved patent had been amended during the substantive examination process and specific sugar alcohols had been defined in the claims. Therefore, according to the "prosecution history estoppel" principle, Daiichi Sankyo should not introduce other sugar alcohols, or even substances completely different from sugar alcohols, into the scope of protection. At the same time, the team actively communicated with all parties and prepared supplementary experimental data to prove that the technical solution for the medication is fundamentally different from the involved patent. In addition, the team also submitted patent applications filed by the respondent's shareholders in Europe, as well as common knowledge evidence to support the defense arguments.
律师评析
Attorney's Analysis
最终，国家知识产权局合议组经审理认为，淀粉水解寡糖和甘露糖醇在涉案专利技术中并不属于基本相同的手段。而且，若仿制药申请人提交的证据已足以表明仿制药技术方案不落入涉案专利的保护范围具有高度可能性时，若无充分理由，再要求被请求人提供更多的材料亦属不公平，亦无助于纠纷的早期解决。故，最终裁决认定被请求人的药品技术方案未落入涉案专利保护范围。
Ultimately, after trial, the collegial panel of the CNIPA held that starch hydrolysis oligosaccharides and mannitol do not constitute substantially the same means within the technology of the involved patent. Furthermore, if the evidence submitted by the generic drug applicant sufficiently demonstrates a high likelihood that the technical solution for the generic drug does not fall within the scope of protection of the involved patent, it would be unfair to further require the respondent to provide additional materials without justified reasons, and such a requirement would be counterproductive to the early resolution of disputes. Consequently, the final adjudication determined that the respondent's technical solution for the medication does not fall within the scope of protection of the involved patent.
因此，熟悉行政裁决审查程序，擅于运用专利发起裁决请求或擅于针对裁决请求进行有效抗辩，将能够很好地保护请求人或被请求人的合法权益。
Therefore, being familiar with the administrative adjudication review procedure and adept at leveraging patents to initiate adjudication requests or effectively defending against adjudication requests will enable effective protection of the legitimate rights and interests of the petitioner or respondent.
集佳成功代理“贵玉”商标权撤销复审行政纠纷案
Unitalen Triumphed in the Administrative Dispute Case Concerning the Reexamination on Revocation of the Trademark Right of "Guiyu(贵玉)"
案情介绍
Case Introduction
本案的焦点问题是《商标法》第四十九条第二款，即第1414829号“贵玉”商标是否在2018年11月11日至2021年11月10期间，在“酒”商品上进行了公开、真实、合法的商业使用。
The focal issue in the case lies in Article 49.2 of the Trademark Law, specifically whether the trademark "Guiyu" (No. 1414829) was publicly, genuinely, and lawfully used in commerce on "alcoholic beverages" during the period from November 11, 2018, to November 10, 2021.
评审阶段，商标权利人鹏彦公司向国知局提交了许可合同、产品图片、购销合同及相关发票，经过审理，国知局认可了这些使用证据，决定维持该商标的注册。
During the review stage, the trademark owner Pengyan Company submitted a licensing contract, product images, purchase and sales contracts, and relevant invoices to the CNIPA. After trial, the CNIPA recognized the use-related evidence and decided to uphold the registration of the trademark.
我方当事人不服，向北京知识产权法院提出了诉讼。经过审理，一审法院认为鹏彦公司提交的证据存在多处瑕疵，且发票金额较小，购买方为自然人，并且其中一份发票为关联公司之间的交易，并且多处不符合商业惯例，因此一审法院认为这些证据不能形成完整的证据链，不能证明诉争商标在三年期限内的使用。
Our client, dissatisfied with the decision, filed a lawsuit with the Beijing Intellectual Property Court. After trial, the first instance court held that the evidence submitted by Pengyan Company had multiple flaws, and the invoice amount was relatively small. The purchasers were natural persons, and one of the invoices involved a transaction between affiliated companies. Additionally, several aspects of the evidence did not conform to normal business practices. Therefore, the first instance court concluded that the evidence could not form a complete evidence chain and could not prove the use of the disputed trademark within the three-year period.
鹏彦公司对一审判决不服向北京市高级人民法院提出了二审。
Pengyan Company, dissatisfied with the first instance judgment, appealed to the Beijing High People's Court for the second-instance proceeding.
裁判结果
Result of Ruling
经过北京市高级人民法院的审理，其结论与一审法院一致，对商标权利人鹏彦公司提交的证据不予认可，撤销国知局的被诉决定。
After trial, the Beijing High People's Court reached the same conclusion as that of the first instance court: it did not recognize the evidence submitted by the trademark owner Pengyan Company, and thus the sued decision of the CNIPA was revoked.
裁判理由
Reasons of Ruling
商标权利人鹏彦公司未提交证据的原件，法院对证据的真实性不予认可，鹏彦公司提交虚假证据，相应提高其证明标准，其所提交的其他证据数量较少，且结合证据存在明显的瑕疵，法院认定鹏彦公司对诉争商标的使用属于象征性使用，并非商标法意义上的使用。
The trademark owner, Pengyan Company, failed to submit the original copies of the evidence, and thus the court did not recognize the authenticity of the evidence. Given that Pengyan Company had submitted false evidence, the court correspondingly raised its burden of proof. Moreover, the quantity of other evidence submitted by Pengyan Company was relatively small, and the evidence, when considered collectively, had obvious flaws. Consequently, the court determined that Pengyan Company's use of the disputed trademark constituted token use only, rather than the use in the sense of the Trademark Law.
典型意义
Typical Significance
“诚实信用原则”作为商标法的原则性条款，其立法精神体现在商标法的各条款中。在撤销三年不使用案件中，商标权利人在提供使用证据的过程中亦负有诚实举证的义务，否则权利人将承担对其不利的法律后果。
The principle of "good faith" serves as a fundamental clause in the Trademark Law, with its legislative spirit permeating through various clauses of the Trademark Law. In cases concerning the revocation of trademarks for non-use over three years, trademark owners bear the obligation to present evidence of use in good faith during the evidentiary process. Otherwise, the owner will face adverse legal consequences.
“共享电单车”滥用行政权力排除、限制竞争案
A Case of Abuse of Administrative Power to Exclude or Restrict Competition in the "Shared Electric Bicycles"
基本案情
Case Brief
杭州青某公司（简称青某公司）系互联网租赁自行车服务提供商，其以某市行政审批服务局（简称某行政审批局）、某市大数据中心在该市违法设定并实施共享电单车特许经营，构成滥用行政权力排除、限制竞争为由，提起行政诉讼，请求撤销被诉具体行政行为。一审法院判决驳回青某公司诉讼请求。青某公司不服，提起上诉。
Hangzhou Qing X Company (hereinafter referred to as the Qing X Company), an Internet-based bicycle rental service provider, filed an administrative lawsuit against a municipal Administrative Approval and Service Bureau (hereinafter referred to as the Administrative Approval Bureau) and a municipal Big Data Center, on the grounds that the two entities illegally set up and implemented a shared electric bicycle franchise system in the city, which constituted abuse of administrative power to exclude or restrict competition. The lawsuit requested the revocation of the specific sued administrative act. The first instance court ruled to dismiss the claim of the Qing X Company. The Qing X Company was dissatisfied with the ruling and filed an appeal.
最高人民法院二审认为，某行政审批局、某市大数据中心在该市共享电单车领域设定特许经营权并将之授予某市交某智慧城市开发有限公司（简称交某公司），实际上是设定和授予共享电单车特许经营权，构成行政机关行使行政权力限定交易，缺乏合法性和合理性，且具有排除、限制竞争效果，构成反垄断法所禁止的滥用行政权力排除、限制竞争行为。鉴于某行政审批局在该市共享电单车领域设定特许经营权，缺乏法律依据，超越职权范围，且在案证据不足以证明撤销被诉行为会损害国家利益和社会公共利益，被诉行政行为应予撤销。故终审判决，撤销一审判决，改判撤销在某市共享电单车领域设定特许经营权并将之授予交某公司的行政行为。
The Supreme People's Court, during the second instance, held that the Administrative Approval Bureau and the municipal Big Data Center, by establishing and granting an exclusive franchise for shared electric bicycles in the city to a municipal Jiao X Smart City Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "Jiao X Company"), had essentially set and conferred exclusive franchise for shared electric bicycles. This act amounted to administrative authorities using their administrative power to restrict transactions, lacking both legality and rationality. Furthermore, it had the effect of excluding or restricting competition, thereby constituting an act of abusing administrative power to exclude or restrict competition as prohibited by the Anti-Monopoly Law. Given that the Administrative Approval Bureau lacked legal basis and exceeded its authority in establishing exclusive franchise for shared electric bicycles in the city, and that the evidence on record was insufficient to prove that revoking the sued act would harm national interests or social public interests, the sued administrative act should be revoked. Consequently, the final judgment overturned the first-instance decision and ruled to revoke the administrative act of establishing exclusive franchise for shared electric bicycles in the city and granting it to Jiao X Company.
典型意义
Typical Significance
该案是最高人民法院首例认定滥用行政权力排除、限制竞争的案件，对明确滥用行政权力排除、限制竞争的认定标准，依法规制滥用行政权力排除、限制竞争行为，推动真正放开市场准入，纵深推进全国统一大市场建设，增进市场活力具有积极意义。
This case marks the first instance where the Supreme People's Court has recognized an act of abusing administrative power to exclude or restrict competition. It holds positive significance in clarifying the criteria for determining the abuse of administrative power to exclude or restrict competition, regulating the abuse of administrative power to exclude or restrict competition in accordance with the law, promoting the genuine opening up of market access, advancing the in-depth development of a unified national market, and enhancing market vitality.
（案例来源：最高人民法院发布2025年人民法院反垄断典型案例）
(Case Source: Typical Anti-monopoly Cases of People's Courts in 2025 Released by the Supreme People's Court)
集佳新闻：
Unitalen News:
集佳深度参与第十五届中国国际商标品牌节
Unitalen Actively Participated in the 15th China International Trademark and Brand Festival
2025年9月5日至8日，第十五届中国国际商标品牌节在山西省太原市隆重举行。
From September 5 to 8, 2025, the 15th China International Trademark and Brand Festival was grandly held in Taiyuan City, Shanxi Province.
集佳深度参与 喜获多项荣誉
Unitalen Actively Participated and Won Multiple Honors
9月5日晚，在商标品牌节欢迎会暨颁奖典礼上，“2025商标代理服务能力数据统计600”榜单发布。北京集佳知识产权代理有限公司再次获评600强之5A级商标代理机构。同时荣获“2025商标品牌节贡献奖”殊荣。
On the evening of September 5, at the Trademark and Brand Festival Welcome Dinner and Award Ceremony, the "2025 Trademark Agency Service Capability Data Statistics 600" list was released. Unitalen Attorneys at Law was once again awarded the title of Grade 5A Trademark Agency among the Top 600. Simultaneously, it was honored with the "2025 Trademark and Brand Festival Contribution Award".
9月7日，在商标节经典论坛之一的商标典型案例评析会议上，集佳代理的“贵玉”商标权撤销复审行政纠纷案荣誉入选“2024年度商标代理典型案例”。
On September 7, at the analysis session of typical trademark cases, one of the classic forums of the Trademark Festival, the administrative dispute case concerning the reexamination on revocation of trademark right of "Guiyu(贵玉)" represented by Unitalen was honored to be selected as one of the "Typical Trademark Agency Cases for 2024".
“地名商标与地理标志的注册、保护与正当使用”沙龙成功举办
The Salon on "Registration, Protection, and Legitimate Use of Geographical Names, Trademarks, and Geographical Indications" Was Successfully Held
9月7日上午，由中华商标协会主办、山西省商标品牌标准化建设促进会主办，北京集佳知识产权代理有限公司、中关村远见知识产权创新研究院协办的沙龙——“地名商标与地理标志的注册、保护与正当使用”成功举办。来自多家企业、知识产权服务机构以及相关组织的100余位代表前来参与。
On the morning of September 7, the salon on "Registration, Protection, and Legitimate Use of Geographical Names, Trademarks, and Geographical Indications" was successfully held, hosted by the China Trademark Association and the Shanxi Promotion Association for Trademark, Brand and Standardization, and co-organized by Unitalen Attorneys at Law and Zhongguancun Vision Intellectual Property Innovation Institute. More than 100 representatives from a number of enterprises, intellectual property service agencies, and related organizations attended the salon.
集佳荣登“2025年度北京商标代理机构T300”榜单第一梯队
Unitalen Ranked in Tier 1 of the "Beijing Trademark Agencies T300 for 2025" List with Honor
近日，北京商标协会成立30周年庆典暨商标发展大会在北京隆重举行，会上正式发布“北京商标代理机构T300”榜单。北京集佳知识产权代理有限公司荣誉入选2025年度北京商标代理机构T300——第一梯队TIER 1。
Recently, the 30th Anniversary Celebration of the Beijing Trademark Association and the Trademark Development Conference were grandly held in Beijing, where the "Beijing Trademark Agencies T300" list was formally released. Unitalen Attorneys at Law was honored to rank in the TIER 1 of the "Beijing Trademark Agencies T300 for 2025".
.jpg)