I. Guidance on Invention Patent Applications Involving Standards Released
The China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) Issued the “Guidance on Invention Patent Applications Involving Standards”
On March 14, the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) released the “Guidance on Invention Patent Applications Involving Standards”. According to public statements, the issuance of this Guidance directly addresses two practical needs: first, to guide domestic and foreign applicants in more regularly drafting patent applications involving standards; and second, to enhance the quality of such patent applications, thereby facilitating a more effective interface between patent portfolio planning and the formulation of international standards. In its issuance statement, the CNIPA explicitly noted that this Guidance was prepared in furtherance of the “Outline for Building an Intellectual Property Powerhouse (2021–2035)” and is intended for reference by innovation entities.
The release of this Guidance represents more than a mere update to “procedural guidelines”; it signals a significant institutional development. In recent years, issues concerning standard-essential patents, the synergy between standards and patents, and the quality of patent applications have grown increasingly important in sectors such as telecommunications, intelligent connected vehicles, the Industrial Internet, and new energy. Particularly against the backdrop where technical standards are gradually becoming the underlying rules of industrial competition, enterprises are required not only to “possess patents” but also to address deeper issues, such as “how patents interface with standards” and “how application documents can better support subsequent right stability and industrial application”. The CNIPA’s issuance of this specific guidance indicates that the requirements for standardization in patent examination, application, and portfolio planning are being further advanced.
From the perspective of the macro policy environment, this measure aligns with current national initiatives concerning emerging industries, future industries, and the construction of the intellectual property system. The “Outline of the 15th Five-Year Plan for National Economic and Social Development of the People’s Republic of China”, released on March 14, emphasizes the need to “improve the intellectual property protection system for emerging fields, enhance the intellectual property public service system and the network of technology transaction service platforms”, and to strengthen capabilities in R&D design, intellectual property, and the commercialization of scientific and technological achievements. Viewed in this context, the issuance of the Guidance essentially establishes a more seamless institutional interface among technological innovation, industrial standards, and intellectual property protection.
[Commentary]
The significance of this Guidance lies not in how many "technical expressions" have been added, but rather in its progressive transformation of an issue previously addressed primarily on a case-by-case basis into a system of rules that can serve as a reference, is operable, and can be replicated. For innovation entities, patents related to standards are not simply about “the more applications the better”; instead, they place greater emphasis on portfolio planning quality, document quality, and right stability. Particularly in global industrial competition, those who can more effectively embed technological achievements into the standard system are better positioned to take the initiative in subsequent licensing, negotiations, and market expansion. The issuance of this Guidance reflects that China’s intellectual property governance is increasingly shifting from a quantity-oriented approach to one driven by quality, rules, and industry.
II. Crackdown on Malpractice in the Agency Industry
Anhui Province Intensifies Crackdown on Malpractice in the Intellectual Property Agency Industry
On March 18, the Anhui Provincial Administration for Market Regulation disclosed the outcomes of a special rectification campaign targeting the intellectual property agency industry. According to public information, since December 2025, the Anhui Provincial Administration for Market Regulation, in conjunction with the Provincial Public Security Department, conducted a three-month special rectification campaign focused on prominent issues such as unqualified agency practice, the leasing or lending of agency qualifications, and patent falsification, and investigated a number of typical cases. Related reports indicate that this campaign directly targeted chronic problems that have long plagued market order and the quality of patent applications within the agency industry, with a highly specific focus.
Regarding the targets of rectification, the issues extend beyond mere “individual institutions violating regulations”. Public reports mentioned that some technology service companies without proper qualifications illegally engaged in soliciting patent agency business through online channels and telemarketing, providing low-quality services that resulted in significant losses for the client enterprises. Simultaneously, the special rectification also covered practices such as the leasing or lending of qualifications, the use of unauthorized tools or AI software for the batch drafting of patents, and the agency practice for abnormal patent applications. Reports further mentioned that certain AI drafting software companies were subject to an administrative interview in connection with these practices, and several cases involving illegal agency activities were investigated and penalized.
In fact, viewing this campaign of Anhui Province within a broader governance context helps to understand its industry significance. As early as 2025, the CNIPA’s official website disclosed Anhui’s efforts in a special campaign to “Safeguard Intellectual Property” and combat abnormal patent applications filed for purposes other than innovation protection, focusing on eight categories of violations, including incomplete qualifications, leasing or lending of qualifications, using others' information to file patent applications, acting as agents for a large number of abnormal patent applications, and false advertising on internet platforms. The announcement of these phased outcomes indicates that governance at the local level has progressed from policy deployment to actual enforcement.
For the intellectual property service industry, such rectification campaigns are significant not only for “regulating the market” but also for that they directly concern the industry’s own credibility. The patent agency profession is meant to serve as a bridge between innovation entities and the examining authorities, fulfilling specialized functions in technical articulation, legal scrutiny, and quality control. If unqualified agency practice, batch falsification, and substandard work become widespread, it not only harms the genuine interests of applicants but also undermines the integrity of the intellectual property system itself. Anhui’s disclosure of these outcomes essentially sends a clearer signal to the market: intellectual property services cannot devolve into a business of low-cost client solicitation and assembly-line production; ultimately, industry competition must return to professionalism, integrity, and quality.
[Commentary]
The intellectual property agency industry functions as an “intermediary layer” within the innovation chain. Though it does not directly produce technology, it profoundly influences whether technological achievements can be accurately articulated, legally protected, and effectively utilized. In recent years, intensified governance concerning issues like abnormal patent applications, unqualified agency practice, and qualification affiliation demonstrates that, at the institutional level, there is an increasingly clear recognition that the intellectual property service industry must move beyond mere quantitative expansion and return to the essence of professional service. This stringent campaign of Anhui Province serves both to eliminate illegal practices and to recalibrate the direction of the industry’s development. A healthier intellectual property ecosystem requires not only high-quality innovation entities but also high-quality service providers.
III. BYD’s Trademark Strategy
BYD Completes Registration of the “Tiansuan” Trademark
On March 16, media reported that BYD Company Limited had completed the registration process for several “BYD Tiansuan” trademarks on March 8. The relevant applications were filed in August 2025 and have now passed review by the CNIPA. Public reports indicate that the registered trademarks primarily cover Class 9 (scientific instruments), Class 12 (vehicles), and Class 42 (design and research services), etc..
The scope of the covered classes suggests this registration goes beyond mere brand name reservation and more closely resembles a forward-looking intellectual property portfolio planning centered on core technologies for intelligent vehicles. Reports noted that Class 9 corresponds to in-vehicle computing platforms, AI chips, sensors, and computing hardware; Class 12 relates to vehicle applications such as intelligent vehicles, intelligent driving systems, and onboard terminals; and Class 42 extends to technical services like software development, cloud computing, big data analytics, and AI algorithm R&D. In other words, the registration of "BYD Tiansuan" is not merely a trademark-level initiative, but reflects a multi-layered intellectual property protection strategy spanning hardware, overall vehicles, and software and algorithm services.
More notably, reports connected this action to BYD’s established intelligence initiatives, suggesting that its goal is to establish a full closed-loop technology chain spanning chips, algorithms, data, hardware, and overall vehicles, while also creating synergies with existing deployments such as the "God's Eye" intelligent driving system and the Xuanji chip. Although, strictly speaking, trademark registration is not equivalent to product launch, nor does it necessarily correspond to the immediate realization of a specific commercial outcome, for leading companies, proactively registering trademarks for key technology names, platform names, and system names has become a standard practice in advancing both technological and brand competitiveness simultaneously.
As competition in the new energy vehicle and intelligent vehicle sectors enters a new phase, the rivalry among enterprises extends beyond overall vehicle sales volume, pricing structures, and configuration specifications, increasingly manifesting as competition over algorithms, chips, software platforms, system architectures, and the naming rights of ecosystems. Trademark layout may appear to be merely a "registration action", but in reality, it is a critical step for enterprises to solidify their technological narrative, build market recognition, and mitigate future rights-related risks. Particularly for leading automotive companies, the more core a business segment, the greater the need for a fully integrated intellectual property portfolio planning encompassing patents, trademarks, trade secrets, and brand communication.
[Commentary]
BYD’s completion of the “Tiansuan” trademark registration, while appearing on the surface as a brand protection measure, essentially reflects the upgrading of intellectual property portfolio planning logic in the intelligent vehicle era. In the past, intellectual property competition among automakers primarily centered on core components and manufacturing technologies. Today, with the accelerated evolution of intelligent driving, in-vehicle computing, and software-defined vehicles, enterprises must protect not only their “technical solutions” but also “technology names”, “platform symbols”, and “market perception entry points”. This indicates that intellectual property is becoming increasingly embedded in enterprises’ product strategy, technology strategy, and brand strategy. For China’s leading manufacturing enterprises, this heightened awareness of strategic intellectual property portfolio planning itself signals a maturing of industrial capability.
