业界新闻：
In this issue:
中国国家知识产权局关于修改《专利审查指南》的决定（局令第84号）
The Decision of the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) on Amending the Guidelines for Patent Examination (Decree No. 84)
第八十四号
No. 84
《国家知识产权局关于修改〈专利审查指南〉的决定》已经2025年9月18日第5次局务会议审议通过，现予公布，自2026年1月1日起施行。
The Decision of the CNIPA on Amending the Guidelines for Patent Examination has been deliberated and adopted at the 5th executive meeting on September 18, 2025, is hereby promulgated, and shall be effective from February 1, 2026 onwards.
局长 申长雨
2025年11月10日
Commissioner: SHEN Changyu
November 10, 2025
附部分内容修改对照表：https://www.unitalen.com.cn/html/folder/25120420-1.htm
Attached is a comparison table for some amendments: https://www.unitalen.com.cn/html/folder/25120420-1.htm
（来源：中国国家知识产权局网站）
(Source: the website of CNIPA)
《世界知识产权指标报告》：2024年全球专利和外观设计申请量创历史新高，商标申请持平
World Intellectual Property Indicators Report: Global Patent and Design Filings Reach New Records in 2024, Trademarks Flat
日前，世界知识产权组织（WIPO）发布《世界知识产权指标》（WIPI）报告。报告显示：
Recently, the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) released the World Intellectual Property Indicators (WIPI) report, according to which:
2024年全球专利申请量连续第五年增长，增幅达4.9%。中国、印度、韩国和日本居民专利申请量的显著提升是2024年全球增长的主要驱动力。
In 2024, global patenting activity grew for the fifth consecutive year, up 4.9%. A substantial rise in patent filings by residents of China, India, the Republic of Korea, and Japan was the main driver of global growth in 2024.
全球外观设计申请量上升2.2%，达160万件，排名前20的国家中有7个实现两位数增长。中国申请人以906,849件申请量位居全球首位。紧随其后的是德国（70,212件）、美国（66,855件）、意大利（63,668件）和韩国（60,109件）。这五大来源国合计占2024年全球申请量的近四分之三（74.9%）。
Global industrial design filings rose by 2.2% to 1.6 million designs, with seven of the top 20 countries seeing double-digit growth. With 906,849 design applications filed, applicants residing in China were the most active worldwide. They were followed by applicants from Germany (70,212 applications), the United States (66,855 applications), Italy (63,668 applications), and the Republic of Korea (60,109 applications). The top five origins collectively accounted for nearly three-quarters (74.9%) of the global activity in 2024.
经历两年放缓后，全球商标申请量呈现复苏迹象，年末基本持平。申请量最大的是中国申请人，其国内外申请类别总数约达730万件；其次为美国申请人（836,457件）、俄罗斯联邦申请人（559,436件）、印度申请人（532,900件）和巴西申请人（436,291件）。
After two years of slowdown, global trademark applications show signs of recovery and remain substantially stable by the end of the year. The highest volume of filing activity came from applicants based in China with a combined domestic and abroad application class count of around 7.3 million, followed by applicants from the United States (836,457 applications), the Russian Federation (559,436 applications), India (532,900 applications), and Brazil (436,291 applications).
（来源：WIPO中国）
(Source: WIPO China)
WIPO推出《SEP持有人面向物联网中小企业的WIPO调解承诺书》
WIPO Launches the WIPO Mediation Pledge by SEP Holders to IoT SMEs
世界知识产权组织（WIPO）近日推出《标准必要专利（SEP）持有人面向物联网中小企业的WIPO调解承诺书》。在此倡议下，部分SEP持有人承诺：在与制造或销售物联网设备的中小企业发生许可争议时，将在启动诉讼程序之前优先提出使用WIPO调解程序化解争议的要约。爱立信、华为、诺基亚、高通和Sisvel成为首批签署《承诺书》的SEP持有人。
The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) launches the WIPO Mediation Pledge by SEP Holders to IoT SMEs. In this new initiative, some standard-essential patent (SEP) holders have committed to offering WIPO Mediation before moving toward litigation in licensing disputes involving small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) that manufacture or sell IoT devices (IoT SMEs). Ericsson, Huawei, Nokia, Qualcomm, and Sisvel are the first SEP holders to sign this Pledge.
这是首次有部分SEP持有人承诺在提起诉讼前优先选择调解，从而为物联网中小企业提供更可及、更高效、且更具成本效益的争议解决路径。根据《承诺书》，SEP持有人提出的调解要约将依据《WIPO调解规则》第四条提交至WIPO仲裁与调解中心，并给予物联网中小企业30日期限以考虑并接受该要约。在此类涉及物联网中小企业的WIPO调解案件中，SEP 持有人将按照WIPO调解费用表承担三分之二的调解员费和案件管理费。
This marks the first time that some SEP holders have pledged to prioritize mediation over court proceedings, making SEP dispute resolution more accessible, efficient, and cost-effective for IoT SMEs. Under the Pledge, a mediation offer made by an SEP holder will be submitted to the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center pursuant to Article 4 of the WIPO Mediation Rules, and IoT SMEs will be given 30 days to consider and accept the offer. In such WIPO mediation cases involving IoT SMEs, SEP holders will bear two-thirds of the mediator's fees and case management fees under the WIPO mediation fee schedule.
近年来，越来越多的创新主体和企业选择将SEP/FRAND许可争议提交至WIPO仲裁与调解中心通过替代性争议解决程序（ADR）化解争议，目前相关WIPO调解案件已超过85件。
In recent years, an increasing number of innovators and businesses have turned to the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center to resolve SEP/FRAND licensing issues through Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) procedures, including more than 85 WIPO SEP mediation cases.
（来源：WIPO中国）
(Source: WIPO China)
中国香港与柬埔寨及马来西亚签署谅解备忘录
Hong Kong, China Signs Memoranda of Understanding with Cambodia and Malaysia
香港特区政府知识产权署12月4日分别与柬埔寨商务部辖下知识产权局及马来西亚知识产权局签署谅解备忘录，为知识产权领域的合作建立框架，推动创新及经济发展。
On December 4th, the Intellectual Property Department of the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region signed separate Memoranda of Understanding with the Intellectual Property Department under Cambodia's Ministry of Commerce and the Intellectual Property Corporation of Malaysia, establishing a framework for cooperation in the field of intellectual property to promote innovation and economic development.
两份谅解备忘录在香港举行的亚洲知识产权营商论坛期间签署，旨在深化中国香港与柬埔寨及马来西亚在知识产权创造、保护、管理及商品化等各方面的合作，提升知识产权在驱动创新和创意及把握营商机遇的关键角色。
The two Memoranda of Understanding were signed during the Business of IP Asia Forum held in Hong Kong, aiming to deepen cooperation between Hong Kong, China, Cambodia, and Malaysia in various aspects of intellectual property creation, protection, administration, and commercialization, and to enhance the pivotal role of intellectual property in driving innovation and creativity as well as seizing business opportunities.
（来源：中国新闻网）
(Source: www.chinanews.com.cn)
典型案例：
Cases in Spotlight:
天然蛋白酶3”商业秘密侵权纠纷案——关于整体技术方案的秘密性认定
Trade Secrets Infringement Dispute Case on 'Natural Protease 3'' —— On the Confidentiality Determination of the Overall Technical Solution
基本案情
Case Brief
新西兰艾某诊断有限公司（以下简称艾某公司）向一审法院起诉称，其系从人体血液中性粒细胞的嗜天青颗粒中分离纯化天然蛋白酶3（英文简称为PR3）生产工艺和产品制备流程技术秘密的权利人。孙某从艾某公司离职后，成为武汉博某生物科技有限公司（以下简称博某公司）的大股东及法定代表人，孙某违反保密义务，擅自将艾某公司的涉案技术秘密披露给博某公司，并与博某公司共同使用涉案技术秘密获取非法利益，将涉案技术秘密申请专利，导致涉案技术秘密被公开，严重损害了艾某公司的合法权益。一审法院认为，涉案专利与涉案技术秘密的技术方案实质相同，涉案专利申请使用并部分披露了涉案技术秘密。博某公司使用了涉案技术秘密生产PR3产品，孙某违反保密义务向博某公司披露了其掌握的涉案技术秘密并允许其使用，共同侵害了涉案技术秘密。一审判决博某公司、孙某立即停止侵权行为，并连带赔偿艾某公司经济损失180万元。艾某公司与博某公司、孙某均不服，提出上诉。艾某公司主张一审判赔金额过低；博某公司、孙某则主张涉案技术信息不构成技术秘密，其内容已为公众所知悉等。
AI X Diagnosis Co., Ltd. in New Zealand (hereinafter referred to as "AI X Company") filed a lawsuit with the court of first instance, alleging that it is the right holder of the technical secret related to the production process and product preparation procedure for isolating and purifying natural protease 3 (abbreviated as PR3 in English) from the azurophilic granules of neutrophils in human blood. After resigning from the AI X Company, SUN X became the major shareholder and legal representative of Wuhan BO X Biotechnology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "BO X Company"). SUN X violated his confidentiality obligations by unlawfully disclosing AI X Company's technical secrets to the BO X Company. He further colluded with BO X Company to exploit the technical secret involved for illegal gains. Sun X also applied for patents for the technical secret involved, resulting in its disclosure, which severely damages the legitimate rights and interests of AI X Company. The court of first instance held that the technical solutions of the patent and the technical secret were substantially similar, and that the patent application had utilized and partially disclosed the technical secret. BO X Company had used the technical secret involved to produce PR3 products. At the same time, SUN X, in violation of his confidentiality obligations, disclosed the mastered technical secret to BO X Company and authorized the company to use it, thereby jointly infringing upon the technical secret. The court of first instance rendered a judgment ordering BO X Company and SUN X to immediately cease their infringing acts and jointly and severally compensate AI X Company for economic losses amounting to 1.8 million yuan. Both AI X Company and BO X Company, along with SUN X, were dissatisfied with the judgment and filed appeals. AI X Company contended that the compensation amount awarded in the first instance was too low, while BO X Company and SUN X argued that the technical information involved did not constitute a technical secret and that its content was already known to the public.
最高人民法院二审认为，涉案技术秘密包含了大量的技术信息，是一个相对完整的技术方案。即使其中部分技术信息为公众所知悉，也要考虑技术信息之间的相互关系，以及整体技术方案是否为公众所知悉。本案中，艾某公司已经提供初步证据证明其对涉案技术信息采取了相应保密措施，且合理表明涉案技术信息被侵犯。虽然从人体血液中性粒细胞的嗜天青颗粒中分离纯化PR3是本领域技术人员已知的技术，但涉案技术信息为具体操作步骤和顺序，涉及大量的试剂及其含量、相关操作参数的选择，需要经过反复实验、修改、优化、调整后才能得出，形成完整的技术方案必然要付出大量研发成本。艾某公司将该操作流程用于实际生产，具有良好效果。因此，基于不同的证据分别公开的特定信息，并不能据此证明涉案技术秘密的整体技术方案或者每个秘密点所对应的具体步骤已经为公众所知悉。博某公司、孙某关于涉案技术秘密已经为公众所知悉的主张不能成立。一审判赔的金额并无明显不当。遂判决驳回上诉，维持原判。
The Supreme People's Court, in a second-instance trial, held that the technical secret involved encompassed a large volume of technical information, constituting a relatively complete technical solution. Even if parts of the technical information were known to the public, it was necessary to consider the interrelationships among the various pieces of information, as well as whether the overall technical solution was known to the public. In this case, AI X Company provided prima facie evidence that it had implemented appropriate confidentiality measures for the technical information at issue and reasonably demonstrated that the technical information was infringed. Although the isolation and purification of PR3 from the azurophilic granules of neutrophils in human blood was a technique known to those skilled in the art, the technical information involved pertained to specific operational steps and sequences, involving a significant number of reagents and the concentrations thereof, as well as the selection of relevant operational parameters, which cannot be obtained without repeated experimentation, modification, optimization, and adjustment, and forming a complete technical solution inevitably requires a significant amount of research and development costs. AI X Company applied this operational procedure to actual production and achieved favorable results. Therefore, the disclosure of specific information based on different pieces of evidence does not prove that the overall technical solution of the technical secret involved or the particular step corresponding to each confidential point has become known to the public. The arguments made by BO X Company and SUN X that the technical secret involved was already known to the public are untenable. The compensation amount awarded in the first instance was not obviously inappropriate. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeals and upheld the original judgment.
典型意义
Typical Significance
本案是依法平等保护外方权利人商业秘密的典型案例。本案裁判强调了经过实验、优化形成的系统性、完整性技术方案仍然可以认定其不为公众知悉，原则上不能以不同来源的碎片化信息简单组合否定构成技术秘密。本案对境外形成的商业秘密在中国境内予以保护，在商业秘密跨境司法保护方面进行有益探索，依法公正平等保护了外方权利人合法权益，增强了外资企业在华投资信心，是人民法院践行中外平等保护原则、优化法治营商环境的典型案例。
This case serves as a typical example of the equal protection afforded to trade secrets held by foreign rights holders under the law. The ruling in this case emphasizes that a systematic and complete technical solution developed through experimentation and optimization can still be deemed as not known to the public, and in principle, the constituent elements of a technical secret cannot be negated simply by combining fragmented information from different sources. This case demonstrates the protection of trade secrets formed overseas within China's jurisdiction, conducts valuable explorations in cross-border judicial protection of trade secrets, and protects the legitimate rights and interests of foreign rights holders in a fair and equal manner in accordance with the law, thus enhancing the confidence of foreign-invested enterprises in investing in China. Accordingly, this case stands as a representative example of the people's courts applying the principle of equal protection to both Chinese and foreign entities and optimizing the legal business environment.
（案例来源：2025年人民法院反不正当竞争典型案例）
(Case Source: Typical Anti-Unfair Competition Cases of the People's Courts in 2025)
第70283061号“L'OIE DES LANDES”商标异议案
Case of Opposition against the Trademark No. 70283061 for "L'OIE DES LANDES"
基本案情
Case Brief
异议人：法国国家产品原产地与质量管理局
Opponent: Institut National de l’Origine et de la Qualité
被异议人：某商贸（上海）有限公司
Respondent: X Trading (Shanghai) Co., Ltd.
异议人主要理由：被异议商标的注册违反商标法第十条第一款第（七）项和第十六条第一款规定。
Main Grounds of the Opponent: The registration of the opposed trademark violates the provisions of Item (7) of Paragraph 1 of Article 10 and Paragraph 1 of Article 16 of the Trademark Law.
经审查，商标局认为，被异议商标指定使用在肉、鱼（非活）、熟肉罐头等商品上。异议人提供的证据可以证明“VOLAILLES DES LAN-DES”（朗德家禽）是法国肉禽产品的地理标志。“LANDES”为法国地名朗德，是世界闻名的鸭、鹅肥肝产地。朗德鹅是世界著名的优质肉鹅品种，经国内诸多媒体的广泛宣传，已为我国相关公众所知晓。被异议商标法语含义为“朗德鹅”，与上述法国地理标志含义相近。被异议人并非来源于上述地区，被异议商标注册使用在肉等商品上易误导公众，使用在其他指定商品上易使消费者对商品品种、产地等产生误认。依据商标法第十条第一款第（七）项和第十六条第一款规定，被异议商标不予注册。
Upon examination, the Trademark Office held that the opposed trademark is designated for use on goods such as meat, fish (non-live), canned cooked meat, and others. The evidence provided by the opponent demonstrates that "VOLAILLES DES LANDES" (Landes Poultry) constitutes a geographical indication for French meat and poultry products. "LANDES" refers to the geographical name of a region in France, renowned globally as a major producing area of duck and goose foie gras. The Landes goose is a world-famous, high-quality meat goose breed. Through extensive media coverage in China, it has become well known to the relevant public. The opposed trademark, with its meaning of "Landes Goose" in French, bears a similar meaning to the aforementioned French geographical indication. The respondent does not originate from the said region, and the registration and use of the opposed trademark on meat and other goods are likely to mislead the public. Its use on other designated goods may also cause consumers to misidentify the product variety, origin, or other characteristics. In accordance with the provisions of Item (7) of Paragraph 1 of Article 10 and Paragraph 1 of Article 16 of the Trademark Law, the registration of the opposed trademark shall be refused.
典型意义
Typical Significance
该案是准确适用商标法第十六条第一款，对国外地理标志进行平等保护的典型案例，彰显出商标主管机关为营造良好营商环境，打击恶意攀附国外地理标志声誉、误导公众行为，维护诚实信用、健康有序的商标注册秩序的坚定决心。
This case serves as a typical example of the accurate application of Paragraph 1 of Article 16 of the Trademark Law to provide equal protection for foreign geographical indications. It demonstrates the trademark authority's unwavering determination to foster a favorable business environment, combat malicious free-riding on the reputations of foreign geographical indications to mislead the public, and uphold an honest, credible, and orderly trademark registration system.
（案例来源：2024商标异议、评审典型案例）
(Case Source: Typical Cases of Trademark Opposition and Review in 2024)
集佳新闻：
Unitalen News:
集佳荣膺WIPR 2025年度中国商标与专利榜单多项荣誉
Unitalen Wins Multiple Honors in WIPR China Trademarks Rankings and Patents Rankings in 2025
近日，国际权威知识产权媒体《世界知识产权评论》（WIPR）重磅发布2025年度中国商标业务榜单和专利业务榜单。集佳知识产权蝉联多项荣誉。
Recently, World Intellectual Property Review (WIPR), an internationally authoritative intellectual property media outlet, has officially released the China Trademarks Rankings and China Patents Rankings in 2025. Unitalen Attorneys at Law has retained multiple honors for consecutive years.
集佳知识产权
Unitalen Attorneys at Law
商标非诉领域
Trademark Non-litigation Field
（Outstanding）
商标诉讼领域
Trademark Litigation Field
（Highly Recommended）
专利非诉领域
Patent Non-litigation Field
（Highly Recommended）
专利诉讼领域
Patent Litigation Field
（Recommended）
李德山
LI Deshan
（Highly Recommended Individuals in the Patent Non-litigation Field）
赵雷
ZHAO Lei
（Outstanding Individuals in the Trademark Non-litigation Field）
集佳及多位合伙人荣登WIPR 2025全球领袖榜单
Unitalen and Several of Its Partners Named to the List of 2025 WIPR Global Leaders
近期，国际权威知识产权媒体《世界知识产权评论》（WIPR）公布了2025WIPR全球领袖榜单（2025 WIPR Global Leader），集佳知识产权再次获评为全球领先事务所，同时，李德山副所长、赵雷律师、潘炜律师、李兵律师凭借突出实力和良好声誉荣登全球领袖个人榜单。
Recently, World Intellectual Property Review (WIPR), an internationally authoritative intellectual property media outlet, released the list of 2025 WIPR Global Leaders. Unitalen Attorneys at Law was once again recognized as a global leading firm. Meanwhile, Vice President LI Deshan, Attorney ZHAO Lei, Attorney PAN Wei, and Attorney LI Bing made it onto the list of Global Leaders (Individuals) for their outstanding capabilities and stellar reputations.
第四届商标品牌人才年会圆满举办 集佳多位商标专家受邀出席
The 4th Trademark Brand Talent Annual Conference Held Successfully; Several Trademark Experts from Unitalen Invited to Attend
2025年11月28日，由中华商标协会主办的第四届商标品牌人才年会在北京成功举办。集佳合伙人赵雷律师（2023年首批特级人才）应邀出席年会并主持会议。合伙人黄莺、合伙人李春亚、合伙人梁瑛、田达良律师、黄波律师作为2025年商标人才库入库（第一批）的特级人才代表，受邀出席年会并获颁证书。
On November 28, 2025, the 4th Trademark Brand Talent Annual Conference, hosted by the China Trademark Association, was successfully held in Beijing. Attorney ZHAO Lei, a partner at Unitalen and recognized as one of the first batch of Distinguished Talents in 2023, was invited to attend and preside over the conference. Partners HUANG Ying, LI Chunya, and LIANG Ying, along with Attorneys TIAN Daliang and HUANG Bo—all designated as Distinguished Talents in the first batch of the 2025 Trademark Talent Pool—were also invited to the annual conference and received certificates at the event.
此前，中华商标协会发布了《2025年商标人才库入库申报（第二批）评价结果公告》，集佳新增23位商标专业人员成功入选2025年商标人才库，包括2位高级二级（原副高级）、13位一级和8位二级人才。至此，集佳已有一百多名商标专业人员成功入选商标人才库。
Previously, the China Trademark Association released the Announcement on the Evaluation Results of the Second Batch of Applications for Inclusion in the 2025 Trademark Talent Pool. Unitalen saw an additional batch of 23 trademark professionals successfully selected into the 2025 Trademark Talent Pool, including 2 at the Senior Grade II (formerly Associate Senior Grade), 13 at Grade I, and 8 at Grade II. With this latest addition, over a hundred trademark professionals from Unitalen have now been included in the Trademark Talent Pool.
.jpg)