业界新闻：
新修改的《专利合作条约（PCT）实施细则》生效
The Newly Amended Regulations under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) Enter into Effect
近日，世界知识产权组织（WIPO）官网发布新修改的《专利合作条约（PCT）实施细则》，目前，该细则已生效。
Recently, the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) published the newly revised Regulations under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) on its official website. These regulations are now in effect.
此次修改主要涉及细则第二十六条第三款、细则第八十九条和细则第九十二条，修改了受理局对国际申请某些部分的检查和改正，从而确保国际申请以单一语言公布，允许国际局以外的主管局仅接受电子形式提交的国际申请和相关文件，使国际局能够使用国际公布语言中的任何一种与申请人或主管局联络。
The amendments primarily concern Rule 26.3, Rule 89, and Rule 92 of the Regulations, modifying the examination and correction of certain parts of international applications by the Receiving Office to ensure that international applications are published in a single language. The amendments also allow competent authorities other than the International Bureau to accept international applications and relevant documents submitted exclusively in electronic form, enabling the International Bureau to communicate with applicants or competent authorities in any of the languages of international publication.
（来源：中国知识产权报）
(Source: China Intellectual Property News)
中国国家知识产权局商标局关于修订部分书式的通知
China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) Trademark Office Notice on the Revision of Certain Application Forms
为进一步规范业务办理流程，更好地满足实际业务办理需求，国家知识产权局商标局对以下商标业务申请书式进行了调整和完善：1.申请商标变更业务；2.申请商标更正业务；3.申请注册商标使用许可备案业务；4.申请补发变更转让续展证明业务；5.申请商标质权登记业务；6.申请撤销无正当理由连续三年不使用注册商标业务。
To further standardize business processing procedures and better meet actual business processing needs, the Trademark Office of CNIPA has adjusted and improved the following trademark business application forms: 1. application for trademark change; 2. application for trademark correction; 3. application for recordal of trademark license; 4. application for reissuance of change, transfer, and renewal certificates; 5. application for trademark pledge registration; 6. application for revocation of a registered trademark not been used for three consecutive years without justified reasons.
本次修订后的申请书式自2025年7月24日起正式启用。自启用之日起，商标申请人及相关机构在办理上述业务时，需使用新的申请书式。原有的旧版申请书式同时停止使用。
The revised application forms will officially come into use on July 24, 2025. From the date of its implementation, trademark applicants and relevant institutions must use the new versions when submitting applications for the above-mentioned business. The previous versions of the application forms will no longer be accepted.
Annex: Revised application forms for relevant business.zip
国家知识产权局商标局
Trademark Office of CNIPA
2025年7月21日
July 21, 2025
（来源：中国国家知识产权局商标局）
(Source: Trademark Office of CNIPA)
2025年世界知识产权组织全球奖揭晓 中国企业连续四年上榜
2025 WIPO Global Awards Announced: Chinese Enterprises Make the List for Four Consecutive Years
当地时间7月11日， 2025年WIPO全球奖颁奖典礼于瑞士日内瓦举行。最终获奖的10家企业覆盖健康、环境、农业食品、创意产业及信通技术五大类别。来自中国的杭州宇树科技股份有限公司凭借其先进的机器人技术上榜。其余九家获奖企业分别来自新加坡、印度、冰岛、斯里兰卡、智利、瑞士、英国和韩国。
On July 11 local time, the 2025 World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Global Awards ceremony was held in Geneva, Switzerland. The ten winning enterprises were selected across five sectors: Health, Environment, Agri-food, Creative Industries, and Information and Communications Technology (ICT). Unitree Robotics from Hangzhou, China made the list with its advanced robotics technology. The other nine winning enterprises came from Singapore, India, Iceland, Sri Lanka, Chile, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and South Korea.
（来源：中国国家知识产权局）
(Source: CNIPA)
典型案例：
集佳代理发明专利复审行政纠纷案件获二审胜诉
Unitalen Won Second Instance Appeal in Administrative Dispute Case Involving Reexamination of Patent for Invention
北京市集佳律师事务所代理的专利权人“东莞市升微机电设备科技有限公司”（以下简称“升微公司”）的专利复审行政诉讼二审案件，近期收到最高人民法院（2023）最高法知行终468号判决书。该判决书撤销了北京知识产权法院（2022）京73行初9357号行政判决、国家知识产权局第298040号复审请求审查决定，为升微公司的创新技术赢得专利保护，进一步巩固了其产品在市场中的竞争优势。
The patent reexamination administrative litigation second-instance case of the patentee "Dongguan Simplewell Technology Co., Ltd." (hereinafter referred to as "Simplewell"), represented by Unitalen Attorneys at Law, recently received the Supreme People's Court's judgment [(2023) Zui Gao Fa Zhi Xing Zhong No. 468]. The judgment revoked the Beijing Intellectual Property Court's [(2022) Jing 73 Xing Chu No. 9357] administrative ruling and the China National Intellectual Property Administration's (CNIPA) Reexamination Decision No. 298040, securing patent protection for Simplewell's innovative technology and further strengthening its product's competitive advantage in the market.
基本案情
Case Brief
被诉决定系国家知识产权局针对名称为“一种电子制冷防结露系统及其防结露方法”的第201711290069.2 号发明专利申请（简称涉案申请）提出的复审请求而作出。涉案申请通过温湿度传感器实时采集的测试舱的内部温度和湿度，以及通过温度传感器实时检测电子制冷片的温度；通过主控制器获取到的温湿度传感器采集到的测试舱的内部温度和湿度，计算测试舱内的空气露点值，当空气露点值高于预设值时，控制制冷片控制单元减少电子制冷片的工作数量或电子制冷片的输出功率，从而，实现制冷片防结露措施及制冷片冗余控制、故障无停机。
The sued decision was issued by the CNIPA in response to a reexamination request concerning the patent application for an invention titled "An Electronic Cooling Anti-Condensation System and Its Anti-Condensation Method" with the application No. 201711290069.2 (hereinafter referred to as "the application involved"). The application involves real-time acquisition of the testing chamber's internal temperature and humidity via a temperature and humidity sensor, as well as real-time detection of electronic cooling plate temperatures via temperature sensors. The main controller calculates the dew point value of the air in the testing chamber based on the acquired temperature and humidity. When the dew point value exceeds a preset value, it controls the cooling plate control unit to reduce the number of working electronic cooling plates or their output power, thereby implementing anti-condensation measures for the cooling plates, redundant control, and fault-free downtime.
被诉决定认为，权利要求1与证据1的区别技术特征在于：（1）本申请为电子制冷防结露系统，制冷使用电子制冷片，所述电子制冷片设置有至少一组，每组电子制冷片分别装设在测试舱的舱壁上，并且其一端部位在测试舱的外部散热，其另一部位固定在测试舱的舱壁上或者舱内；以及制冷片控制单元的具体控制方法；（2）包括与主控制器相连的温度传感器，用于检测电子制冷片的温度，所述温度传感器装设在每组电子制冷片的靠舱内侧部位上或者所有电子制冷片的共用靠舱内侧部位上或者舱壁上或者电子制冷片靠舱内散热片上。区别技术特征实际解决的技术问题是如何实现制冷系统的温度控制。对于区别（1），证据2公开了一种能够适用于多种循环体的制冷系统，且公开了该系统能够在控制器9的控制下实现多组半导体制冷器的独立控制，提供不同的制冷量，即保证温度控制的准确性和可调性，上述公开特征在对比文件2中的作用与其在本申请中的作用相同，能够给出用于对比文件1实现精确温度控制的启示。对于区别（2），在证据1公开的基础上，本领域技术人员根据需要可以进行选择的。故，在证据1的基础上结合证据2和公知常识，权利要求1不具有创造性。一审法院与被诉决定持基本相同的观点。
The sued decision holds that Claim 1 is distinguished over Evidence 1 in the following technical features: (1) this application relates to an electronic cooling anti-condensation system, wherein electronic cooling plates are used for cooling, and there is at least one group of the electronic cooling plates, each group of the electronic cooling plates is respectively mounted on a chamber wall of the testing chamber, and one end part of the electronic cooling plate dissipates heat outside the testing chamber while the other part thereof is fixed on the chamber wall or the interior of the testing chamber; and the specific method for controlling a cooling plate control unit; and (2) this application comprises temperature sensors connected to a main controller, used for detecting temperatures of the electronic cooling plates, wherein the temperature sensors are mounted on a part, close to an inner side of the testing chamber, of each group of the electronic cooling plates, or a common part, close to an inner side of the testing chamber, of all electronic cooling plates, or the chamber wall, or cooling fins, close to the interior of the testing chamber, of the electronic cooling plates. The technical problem actually solved by the distinguishing technical features is how to achieve temperature control of the cooling system. Regarding the distinction (1), Evidence 2 discloses a refrigeration system applicable to various circulation bodies, and discloses that the system can achieve independent control of multiple groups of semiconductor refrigerators under the control of controller 9, providing different refrigerating capacities, thus ensuring the accuracy and adjustability of temperature control. The above-disclosed features perform the same function in Evidence 2 as they do in this application, and can provide inspiration for achieving precise temperature control in Evidence 1. Regarding the distinction (2), based on the disclosure in Evidence 1, those skilled in the art can make selections as needed. Therefore, based on Evidence 1 in combination with Evidence 2 and common knowledge, Claim 1 lacks an inventive step. The first-instance court and the sued decision hold essentially the same view.
在二审中，集佳对涉案专利和对比文件的方案从技术方案的实质上进行了详尽的解释，并对重新认定技术问题的依据和事实重点阐述，基于对技术问题重新认定，证据2并未给出解决该技术问题的技术启示，在证据1的基础上也不具备改进动机。二审法官在对技术事实详尽了解的基础上，支持了升微公司的主张，做出了撤销被诉决定和一审判决的判决。
In the second instance, Unitalen provided a detailed explanation of the solutions of the patent involved and the reference documents regarding the essence of the technical solutions, and elaborated on the basis and facts for re-determining the technical problem. Based on the re-determination of the technical problem, Evidence 2 did not provide technical inspiration for solving the technical problem, and there was no motivation for improvement based on Evidence 1. The judges in the second-instance, having thoroughly understood the technical facts, supported Simplewell's claims and issued a judgment revoking the sued decision and the first-instance judgment.
本案看点
Issue of the Case
本案双方主要的争议焦点是有关创造性的认定问题，包括区别特征实际解决的技术问题、现有技术的改进动机和结合启示等。但需要注意的是，本案还有一个问题也引起了合议庭的关注：本案申请的技术方案同时布局有其他国家的同族专利，在本案一审和二审期间，欧洲、美国、日本、韩国、俄罗斯、印尼等国同族专利已陆续获得授权，而唯有中国同族申请被驳回。一审法院的观点是专利具有地域性，在外国授权不意味着在中国当然授权。对此，升微公司在上诉中提供证据并提出本案所涉及的对比文件在有些国家审查中也曾使用，并且韩国授权专利所引用的现有技术与本案是相同的，虽然各国创造性审查标准存在区别，但总体仍是审查显而易见性问题，而且有部分特征不是基于现有技术公开而是基于公知常识否定创造性的，因此质疑本案的创造性存在审查尺度不适当的问题。并在庭后提交了与本案采用类似对比文件的韩国、日本、美国的对比文件及审查意见的分析以供法官参考。尽管二审判决中未对升微公司提交的这些材料及其所引发的国内外授权标准差异问题做出明确论述，但这一情况相信对法官的心证产生了影响。
The main focus of dispute between the two parties in this case is around the determination of inventiveness, including the technical problems actually solved by the distinguishing features, the motivation for improvement of the prior art, combination inspiration, and the like. However, it is worth noting that another issue also drew the attention of the panel: the technical solution of this application has corresponding family patents in other countries. During the first and second instance proceedings of this case, the family patents in Europe, the U.S., Japan, South Korea, Russia, Indonesia, and other countries have been granted one after another, while only the Chinese application was rejected. The first-instance court held that patents are territorial, and foreign grants do not necessarily entail authorization in China. In this regard, Simplewell submitted evidence in the appeal, pointing out that the reference documents cited in this case had also been used in examinations in some other countries. Moreover, the prior art cited in the granted Korean patent was identical to that in this case. Although the standards for assessing inventiveness vary across countries, the core issue remains the examination of obviousness. Additionally, some features was rejected based on common knowledge rather than disclosure in the prior art, leading Simplewell to question whether the inventiveness assessment in this case was conducted under an inappropriate standard. After the hearing, Simplewell further submitted an analysis of reference documents and examination opinions from Korea, Japan, and the U.S. that were similar to those used in this case, for the judges' reference. Although the second-instance judgment did not explicitly address these materials or the discrepancies in grant standards between China and other countries, it is believed that this situation influenced the judges' conviction.
集佳代理德国知名化学品公司专利无效案件再次成功维权
Unitalen Representing the Famous German Chemicals Company Won the Patent Invalidation Case Again
基本案情
Case Brief
德之馨公司总部位于德国霍尔茨明登，是世界主要的香精香料、食品和化妆品原料、营养品公司之一。
Headquartered in Holzminden, Germany, Symrise is one of the world's leading companies in flavors and fragrances, food and cosmetic ingredients, and nutritional supplements.
德之馨公司名称为“抗微生物组合物”的中国发明专利（以下简称“涉案专利”）受到了无效宣告请求人提出的第二次无效挑战。涉案专利之前已经受到过一次无效挑战，且其同族专利在欧洲也受到了异议挑战。在中国的第一次无效案件中，集佳团队提供了行之有效的答辩策略，并代理客户成功维持了该中国专利的有效性。
Symrise's Chinese invention patent (hereinafter referred to as "the patent involved") entitled "Antimicrobial Compositions" faced a second invalidation challenge initiated by a petitioner for invalidation. The patent involved had previously withstood an invalidation challenge, and its European counterpart was also challenged by opposition proceedings. In the first invalidation case in China, the Unitalen team provided effective response strategies and successfully represented Symrise in maintaining validity of the Chinese patent.
在第二次无效挑战中，无效宣告请求人进一步引用了涉案专利的欧洲同族专利异议程序中的多个文件，并提出了涉案专利没有遵循诚实信用原则、说明书公开不充分、权利要求得不到说明书支持以及缺乏创造性等无效理由。
In the second invalidation challenge, the petitioner for invalidation further referred to multiple documents cited in the opposition proceedings of the European counterpart of the patent involved, and submitted the invalidation grounds including that the patent involved fails to abide by the principle of good faith, the disclosure of the description is insufficient, the claims are not supported by the description and lack an inventive step, and the like.
德之馨公司继续委托集佳作为代理人应对本次无效宣告请求。在口头审理中，集佳团队进行了充分地准备并发表了意见：在质证过程中指出无效宣告请求人所提交证据的证据资格和证明力问题；对于诚实信用原则，指出了无效宣告请求人的举证问题以及对于法律概念的混淆；准确地指出了无效宣告请求人的多项无效理由和证据符合“一事不再理”的原则等等。基于口头审理的情况，集佳团队于口审后提交了庭后代理意见以及相关的参考资料来进一步阐述己方观点。
Symrise continued to entrust Unitalen as its agent to respond to this invalidation request. In the oral hearing, the Unitalen team made full preparations and presented opinions: during the evidence examination process, pointing out issues with the evidence qualification and probative force of the evidence submitted by the petitioner for invalidation; regarding the principle of good faith, pointing out the petitioner's issues with burden of proof and confusion of legal concepts; accurately pointing out that multiple invalidation grounds and evidence from the petitioner violated the "res judicata" principle, etc. Based on the oral hearing situation, the Unitalen team submitted post-hearing agent opinions and related reference materials to further elaborate its views.
案件结果
Case outcomes
最终，在没有对涉案专利的权利要求进行修改的情况下，无效宣告请求人撤回了本次无效宣告请求，涉案专利得以维持有效，集佳团队帮助客户再次成功维持专利权。
Finally, the petitioner for invalidation withdrew the request for invalidation without any amendment made to the claims of the patent involved. The validity of the patent involved was maintained. Once again, the Unitalen team assisted the client in successfully defending its patent rights.
相关阅读：Unitalen Representing the Famous German Chemicals Company Won the Patent Invalidation Case
Related reading: Unitalen Representing the Famous German Chemicals Company Won the Patent Invalidation Case
集佳代理客户成功无效相对方的涉诉外观设计专利
Unitalen Representing the Client Successfully Invalidated a Design Patent in Suit of the Opposing Party
近日，北京市集佳律师事务所代理某公司在专利无效宣告程序中成功无效相对方关于鞋底的外观设计专利，为客户的关联诉讼程序提供了强大助力。
Recently, Unitalen Law Office represented a company in successfully invalidating the opposing party's design patent for shoe soles in patent invalidation proceedings, providing strong support for the client's related litigation proceedings.
基本案情
Case Brief
此前，专利权人某自然人在与集佳客户公司的诉讼纠纷中，要求集佳客户公司停止侵权，并主张侵权损害赔偿。
Previously, in a lawsuit dispute with the client company of Unitalen, the patentee, a natural person, requested the client company to cease infringement and claimed damages for infringement.
本案中，市面上存在与涉案专利较为相似的在先销售产品，在涉案专利申请日前，小红书平台上已有笔记公开了该在先销售产品的外观细节。基于此，集佳团队采取时间戳公证对该笔记进行取证，并专门对小红书平台的内容发布与修改机制进行了验证，当用户对小红书笔记的内容进行修改时，小红书笔记的发布时间也会同步更新。最终小红书笔记的真实性被合议组采信，并据此成功宣告涉案专利权全部无效。
In this case, there was a prior sale of products on the market that were similar to the patent involved, and prior to the filing date of the patent involved, details of the appearance of the prior-sold products had been disclosed in a post on the XiaoHongShu (RedNote) platform. On this basis, the Unitalen team collected evidence for the post using timestamp notarization, and specifically verified the content publication and modification mechanism of the XiaoHongShu platform. When a user modifies the content of a XiaoHongShu post, the publication time of the post is also updated synchronously. Ultimately, the authenticity of the XiaoHongShu post was accepted by the collegiate panel, and accordingly, the patent rights involved were declared to be invalid in full.
亮点小结
Highlights Summary
本案中，国家知识产权局认为：“小红书是一款国内较为知名的分享生活方式和消费体验的平台，其用户注册后即可以自行上传发布笔记至互联网，笔记发布后末尾显示的时间为其发布时间，用户对其发布的笔记修改后的笔记末尾会显示‘编辑于……’以表明最后编辑时间。”据此，国家知识产权局认可了小红书网络证据的真实性。此外，国知局认为，“虽然小红书笔记有可见范围的选择，而且可以随意切换不留痕迹，但本案涉及的笔记内容是关于产品推介，具有明显的与人分享的意愿，其在涉案专利申请日之前已经处于公开状态具有高度盖然性。专利权人提出的质疑，在没有明确反证的情况下，不足以证明推翻该结论。”据此推定该证据已在涉案专利申请日前被公开。本案的处理结果为专利确权程序中网络证据真实性和公开性的认定提供了正反两方面的参考。
In this case, the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) holds that "XiaoHongShu is a well-known Chinese platform for sharing lifestyles and consumer experiences. After registration, users can upload and publish posts to the Internet. The time displayed at the end of a published post indicates its publication time. If a user modifies a post he/she has published, the end of the post will display "Edited on..." to indicate the last editing time". In view of this, the CNIPA recognized the authenticity of the XiaoHongShu network evidence. In addition, the CNIPA believes that "although XiaoHongShu posts have selections of visibility ranges, which can be switched at will without leaving a trace, the post involved in this case relates to product promotion, showing a clear intention of sharing with others. The post was already in a public state before the filing date of the patent involved, which has a high probability. The challenge raised by the patentee is not sufficient to overturn the conclusion in the absence of clear counter-evidence". It is thereby inferred that the evidence had been disclosed prior to the filing date of the patent involved. The outcome of this case provides both positive and negative references for the determination of authenticity and disclosure of online evidence in patent confirmation proceedings.
集佳新闻：
Unitalen News:
集佳在北京商标协会成立30周年暨商标发展大会上揽获多项荣誉
Unitalen Won Honors at the 30th Anniversary of the Beijing Trademark Association & Trademark Development Conference
2025年8月8日下午，北京商标协会成立30周年暨商标发展大会隆重举行。中华商标协会会长马夫、国家知识产权局商标局副局长张国鹏、北京市知识产权局副局长蔡鑫、北京商标协会会长于泽辉等领导出席大会并致辞。大会由北京商标协会执行副秘书长赵雷主持。
In the afternoon of August 8, 2025, the Beijing Trademark Association marked its 30th anniversary with a grand celebration and the Trademark Development Conference. Leaders including Ma Fu, Chairman of the China Trademark Association, ZHANG Guopeng, Deputy Director of the Trademark Office of the CNIPA, CAI Xin, Deputy Director of the Beijing Intellectual Property Office, and YU Zehui, Chairman of the Beijing Trademark Association, attended the conference and delivered speeches. The conference was hosted by Ray Lei Zhao, Executive Deputy Secretary of the Beijing Trademark Association.
在颁奖仪式上，集佳知识产权凭借在商标代理领域的杰出实力与良好口碑揽获多项荣誉。北京集佳知识产权代理有限公司入选“金牌商标法律服务团队”。集佳合伙人孙智、赵雷、朱国栋、李兵获评为“商标法律服务领军人物”。集佳合伙人谭雅琦获评为“商标法律服务青年才俊”。
At the award ceremony, Unitalen IP, with its outstanding strength and good reputation in the field of trademarks, received multiple honors. Unitalen Attorneys At Law was selected into "Gold Medal Trademark Legal Service Teams". Unitalen Partners, SUN Zhi, Ray Lei Zhao, ZHU Guodong and LI Bing were awarded as "Leaders of Trademark Legal Services". Unitalen partner, TAN Yaqi was awarded as "Rising Stars of Trademark Legal Services".
此外，集佳合伙人张亚洲律师应邀出席大会，并在主论坛发表“企业商标合规中的考量因素”这一主题演讲。来自政府部门、友好协会、会员单位等机构的近500位专业人士出席了大会，共话行业未来，凝聚智慧与力量，开启商标事业发展的崭新篇章。
In addition, ZHANG Yazhou, Partner and Attorney at Unitalen, was invited to the conference and delivered a keynote speech on "Considerations in Corporate Trademark Compliance" at the main forum. Nearly 500 professionals from government departments, affiliated associations, member organizations, etc. attended the conference and discussed the future of the industry, pooling intelligence and strength to open a new era of the trademark industry development.
集佳助力生物医疗企业出海 汇聚中外专家共话知识产权跨境保护与布局策略
Unitalen Boosting Biomedical Enterprises' Overseas Expansion by Gathering Chinese and Foreign Experts to Discuss Cross-Border Protection and Layout Strategies for IP Rights
2025年7月17日，由重庆市知识产权保护中心、海外知识产权纠纷应对指导重庆分中心主办，北京集佳知识产权代理有限公司重庆分公司联合重庆两江新区知识产权托管中心、北京市集佳律师事务所共同承办的“生物医疗企业出海欧美知识产权保护与布局策略研讨会” 在渝顺利召开。
On July 17, 2025, the "Seminar on Intellectual Property Protection and Layout Strategies for Biomedical Enterprises Expanding into Europe and the United States" was successfully held in Chongqing, hosted by the Chongqing Intellectual Property Protection Center and the Chongqing Branch of the National Advisory Center for Overseas Intellectual Property Dispute Settlement, and co-organized by the Chongqing Branch of Unitalen Attorneys at Law, the Intellectual Property Service Center of Chongqing Liangjiang New Area, and Unitalen Law Office.
本次会议特邀美国吉美尼律师事务所（Gemini Law LLP）管理合伙人 Rob Cerwinski（罗伯・塞文斯基）、英国品诚梅森律师事务所（Pinsent Masons）的 Tracey Roberts（特蕾西・罗伯茨）及本地专家学者，聚焦企业出海痛点，为重庆生物医疗企业破解欧美知识产权壁垒提供专业指引。
The seminar specially invited speakers Rob Cerwinski, a managing partner of Gemini Law LLP of the USA, Tracey Roberts, a partner of Pinsent Masons of the UK and local IP specialists and scholars to focus on pain points of enterprises in overseas expansion, and to provide professional guidance for Chongqing biomedical enterprises to break through the intellectual property barriers in Europe and the United States.
集佳合伙人赵雷律师连续第三年荣登“WTR 全球领袖”榜单（WTR Global Leaders 2025）
Ray Lei Zhao, Partner and Attorney at Unitalen, Selected on the WTR Global Leaders 2025 for the Third Consecutive Year
近日，国际知识产权领域权威媒体《世界商标评论》（WTR）发布2025年“全球领袖”榜单（WTR Global Leaders 2025），集佳合伙人赵雷律师凭借在知识产权领域的卓越能力与良好声誉连续第三年荣登榜单。
Recently, World Trademark Review (WTR), an international authoritative media in the field of intellectual property, released the list of Global Leaders 2025. Ray Lei Zhao, Partner and Attorney at Unitalen was selected on the list for the third consecutive year for his excellent capability and good reputation.
WTR对全球领袖榜单入选专家进行了独家访谈，以下为赵雷律师专访全文：https://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/survey/wtr-global-leaders/2025/article/ray-lei-zhao
WTR conducted an exclusive interview with experts selected on the list of Global Leaders. The following is the full text of the interview with Attorney Ray Lei Zhao: https://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/survey/wtr-global-leaders/2025/article/ray-lei-zhao
.jpg)