Special Policy Interpretation on Abnormal Patent Applications

Key Points at a Glance

• Regulatory system: CNIPA coordination + local office collaborative handling + industry association early warning + public supervision.
• Eight typical behaviors: Identical content/simple combination, fabrication/plagiarism/cobbling, AI random generation, feature piling, mismatch with business, malicious division, false inventor change, other disruptive acts.
• Legal framework: Article 20 of the Patent Law (good faith), Article 11 of the Implementing Regulations, Revision Decision No. 8484 of January 2026, and Order No. 77, the Provisions on Regulating Patent Application Behaviors.
• Five-step handling: Clue discovery → internal verification → local handling → party defense → final disposition.
• Accompanying penalties: No fee reduction, public exposure, dishonesty list, deduction from quantity statistics, recovery of subsidies, referral to judicial authorities.

Policy Background

Multi-level Regulatory System

Eight Typical Behaviors of Abnormal Patent Applications

Key correction of misconception: There is no necessary connection between the number of features, the size of the protection scope, and inventiveness. Inventiveness assessment focuses on the height of innovation and technical contribution—not “the more features, the easier to be granted.”

Remediation Results and Legal Framework

Governance Effect Data (with Typical Cases)

Full Investigation and Handling Process (Five Steps)

New development—association email early-warning mechanism: Agencies on the precision-service list receive an early-warning email from the association first, and a formal specialized office action letter may be issued later.

On “all applications rejected by examiners after appeal”: If the task force cannot confirm but also cannot clear the suspicion, the case enters an “intermediate state” → proceeds to substantive examination under suspicion → intensified examination → rejected under Article 11 of the Regulations or examined under ordinary provisions.

Defense evidence checklist: Industry-university-research cooperation agreements, R&D records, experimental data, product production / sales documents, personnel qualification certificates, etc.

Practical Hot Topics

Supporting Penalty Measures

• × No fee reduction
• × Public exposure
• × Credit penalty / dishonesty list
• × Deduction from patent quantity statistics
• × Recovery of fiscal rewards / subsidies
• × Referral to judicial authorities if a crime is suspected
• × Rejection or deemed withdrawal (termination of examination)

Frequently Asked Questions about Abnormal Applications

Patent applications that violate the principle of good faith and are not made for the purpose of genuine innovation. The training materials categorize them into eight typical behaviors (identical content/simple combination, fabrication/plagiarism/cobbling, AI random generation, feature piling, mismatch with business, malicious division, false inventor change, other order-disrupting behaviors). The basis for determination is Article 20 of the Patent Law (good faith), relevant provisions of the Implementing Regulations, and Order No. 77, the Provisions on Regulating Patent Application Behaviors.

The accompanying penalties include: no fee reduction, public exposure, inclusion in credit penalties / dishonesty list, deduction from patent quantity statistics, recovery of fiscal rewards or subsidies, referral to judicial authorities if a crime is suspected, as well as rejection or deemed withdrawal (termination of examination). These are compounded by ongoing supervision such as the “Blue Sky” action and special campaigns, affecting the credit records of both applicants and agencies.

The handling process includes a “party defense” stage: submit a statement of opinions + R&D evidence within the prescribed time limit. Valid defense evidence includes industry-university-research cooperation agreements, R&D records, experimental data, product production / sales documents, personnel qualification certificates, etc. Be sure to observe the response deadline, as overdue submission is deemed a waiver of defense. Valid evidence can restore normal examination; if the appeal is unsuccessful, the examination authority will continue to issue a specialized office action letter and take further action as appropriate.

The core is to hold the bottom line of “genuine innovation”: do not fabricate; do not plagiarize or cobble together; do not rely on AI to randomly generate solutions; do not maliciously divide to evade supervision; do not falsely change inventors. The technical field of the application should match your own business scope, and you should retain complete R&D process evidence. At the same time, abandon the misconception that “more features make granting easier,” and win with technical contribution rather than feature quantity.

The training explicitly lists “relying on programs or AI to automatically generate drawings or solutions” as one of the typical abnormal-application behaviors. But this does not mean AI cannot be used in patent work—the key is whether humans have made a substantial creative contribution. If AI is only an aid and the core innovation is still completed by R&D personnel with genuine technical contribution, a normal application may be filed; if the solution is randomly generated by a program and lacks genuine R&D, it falls within the scope of remediation.

① The dual-filing declaration must be checked at the application stage and cannot be supplemented if omitted; ② the utility model must be in a valid state when the invention is granted; ③ the waiver declaration is announced together with the dual-filing status; ④ an invention without the declaration checked will be rejected. It is advised to strictly verify the declaration checkbox to avoid procedural errors that lead to loss of rights.

Clues may come from the full-process examination (acceptance, preliminary examination, substantive examination, reexamination, international applications, etc.) or from public reports. A recent development is the association email early-warning mechanism—agencies on the precision-service list receive an early-warning email from the association first. It is recommended that applicants maintain smooth communication with their agency and the local IP office, and routinely retain R&D evidence so as to defend themselves promptly and effectively when inquiries are received.

Zhihaiyida Related Services

We provide services such as patent annual fee monitoring, trademark portfolio planning, and IP compliance consulting to help you avoid abnormal-application risks and safeguard your patent assets:

• Patent Annual Fee Monitoring—automatically tracks annual fee milestones and legal status, and reminds you of overdue surcharges together.
• Trademark Classification Search and Planning—fine-grained search and filing planning across Nice Classes 1–45.