On February 26, 2026, China’s National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) released the Draft Amendments to the Measures for the Administration of Patent Priority Examination for comment (专利优先审查管理办法修改草案（征求意见稿)). However, despite Article 3 of Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights requiring national treatment, the Draft does not rectify the earlier version to provide a mechanism for foreigners to request priority examination.
The current Measures for the Administration of Patent Priority Examination has been in effect since August 1, 2017 with over 720,000 patent applications receiving priority examination during the 14th Five-Year Plan period (2021-2025). The Draft revises 14 articles and adds 9 new articles.
A translation of the Draft follows. The original text is available here (Chinese only). The deadline for comments is March 30, 2026.
Article 1 This Regulation is formulated in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Patent Law of the People’s Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as the Patent Law) and the Implementing Regulations of the Patent Law of the People’s Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as the Implementing Regulations) to further promote the construction of a strong intellectual property nation, serve the innovation-driven development strategy, and standardize patent priority examination work.
Article 2 Patent priority examination work shall adhere to the principle of high-quality development, be demand-oriented, promote technological innovation in key national areas and the construction of a modern industrial system, support the development of new productive forces, and help optimize the business environment.
Article 3 The China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) shall coordinate and manage patent priority examination work, accept and review priority examination requests, strengthen examination resource guarantees, and provide high-quality examination services. Provincial-level intellectual property offices are responsible for recommending priority examination requests within their respective regions.
The CNIPA may receive priority examination requests recommended by relevant departments under the State Council.
Article 4 This Regulation applies to the priority examination of the following patent applications or cases:
(1) Invention patent applications in the substantive examination stage that have not yet received a first-time ruling;
(2) Utility model and design patent applications;
(3) Re-examination cases of invention, utility model, and design patent applications (hereinafter referred to as re-examination cases);
(4) Invalidation cases of invention, utility model, and design patents (hereinafter referred to as invalidation cases). Priority examination conducted under bilateral or multilateral agreements signed between the CNIPA and patent examination authorities of other countries or regions shall be handled in accordance with relevant regulations and shall not be subject to this Regulation.
Article 5 Patent applications and re-examination cases requesting priority examination shall possess significant innovative value and clear prospects for commercialization and application, and meet one of the following conditions:
(i) Involving emerging and future industries that are key areas of national support, or involving breakthroughs in key core technologies in key fields;
(ii) Involving industries that are key areas of encouragement by provincial or municipal governments;
(iii) The patent applicant or re-examination requester has already industrialized the invention or is preparing for industrialization, or there is evidence that others are implementing the invention;
(iv) The Chinese application that was first filed in China on the same subject matter and subsequently filed a request for substantive examination in other countries or regions;
(v) Other cases of significant importance to national or public interests.
Article 6 Invalidation cases may request priority examination if one of the following conditions is met:
(i) The patent involved has been involved in an infringement dispute, and the parties have requested the local intellectual property office to handle the matter or filed a lawsuit in a people’s court;
(ii) The patent involved is of significant importance to national or public interests.
Article 7 Agencies providing services to patent applicants or parties involved in cases requesting priority examination shall have good credit, high business and service levels, and conscientiously fulfill their industry self-regulatory responsibilities.
Article 8 Patent applications or cases shall generally not be granted priority examination under any of the following circumstances:
(1) The patent application is a divisional application, and its original application has been granted expedited examination;
(2) For an invention patent application, the applicant has filed a utility model application for the same invention on the same filing date;
(3) The patent application, re-examination case, or invalidation case has been granted expedited examination within its respective examination procedure;
(4) For patent applications requesting priority examination under Article 5, Paragraph 4 of these Measures, the relevant materials indicate that they have no prospect of being granted.
Article 9 A request for priority examination of a patent application or re-examination case shall be made with the consent of all applicants or all re-examination requesters; a request for priority examination of an invalidation case shall be made with the consent of the invalidation requester or all patentees. Local intellectual property offices and people’s courts handling and adjudicating patent infringement disputes may make requests for priority examination of invalidation cases involving the patent in question.
Article 10 Patent applications or cases requesting priority examination shall be filed using a compliant electronic application method.
Article 11 When an applicant requests priority examination for an invention, utility model, or design patent application, they shall submit a priority examination request form and materials related to the applicable circumstances stipulated in Article 5 of these Measures. Except as provided in Item 4 of Article 5 of these Measures, the priority examination request form shall be accompanied by a recommendation from the relevant competent department of the State Council or the provincial intellectual property office. Applicants may submit materials related to prior art or prior design information that may expedite the examination process.
When a party requests priority examination for a re-examination case or an invalidation case, they shall submit a priority examination request form and materials related to the applicable circumstances stipulated in Articles 5 and 6 of these Measures. The priority examination request form shall be accompanied by a recommendation from the relevant competent department of the State Council or the provincial intellectual property office.
When a local intellectual property office or people’s court requests priority examination for an invalidation case, they shall submit a priority examination request form and explain the reasons.
Article 12 Except for the fees payable as stipulated in the Patent Law and its Implementing Regulations, the CNIPA shall not charge any additional fees for patent applications or cases requesting priority examination.
Article 13 Each provincial-level intellectual property office shall select and recommend patent applications or cases requesting priority examination in accordance with the applicable conditions stipulated in Articles 4 to 7 of these Measures, and explain the reasons for the recommendation; no recommendation shall be made if the requester submits false materials or engages in other conduct that violates the principle of good faith.
Article 14 After accepting a priority examination request, the CNIPA shall review the priority examination request, the reasons for recommendation, and related materials in accordance with these Measures, and notify the requester of its review opinion.
Article 15 Patent applications or cases approved for priority examination by the CNIPA shall be processed within the following timeframes from the date of issuance of the priority examination notification, except where there are identified difficult technical or legal issues:
(i) Invention patent applications shall be processed for the first time within 45 days and closed within one year;
(ii) Utility model and design patent applications shall be closed within two months;
(iii) Re-examination cases shall be closed within seven months;
(iv) Invalidation cases for invention and utility model patents shall be closed within five months, and invalidation cases for design patents shall be closed within four months.
Article 16 For patent applications granted priority examination, the applicant shall respond or make corrections as soon as possible. The deadline for the applicant to respond to the examination opinion notification for an invention patent application is one month from the date of issuance of the notification; the deadline for the applicant to respond to the examination opinion notification for a utility model or design patent application is fifteen days from the date of issuance of the notification.
Article 17 For patent applications granted priority examination, the CNIPA may terminate the priority examination procedure and process it according to the ordinary procedure, and shall promptly notify the priority examination requester, under any of the following circumstances:
(1) After the priority examination request has been approved by the CNIPA , the applicant proposes amendments to the application documents in accordance with Articles 57, Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Implementing Regulations of the Patent Law;
(2) The applicant’s response period exceeds the deadline stipulated in Article 16 of these Measures, or the applicant requests an extension for response;
(3) The applicant submits false materials or engages in other conduct that violates the principle of good faith.
Article 18 For priority examination re-examination cases or invalidation cases, the CNIPA may terminate the priority examination procedure and handle the case according to the ordinary procedure, and shall promptly notify the priority examination requester, under any of the following circumstances:
(1) The re-examination requester postpones the response;
(2) After the priority examination request has been approved by the CNIPA , the invalidation requester supplements evidence and reasons, or the patentee amends the claims by means other than deletion;
(3) The patent re-examination or invalidation procedure is suspended;
(4) The case hearing depends on the examination conclusion of other cases;
(5) The parties submit false materials, or there are other acts that violate the principle of good faith.
Article 19 The CNIPA shall allocate and adjust the number of priority patent examinations in various regions based on factors such as the management of priority patent examination work in each region, the recommendation and subsequent examination of priority examination requests, and the progress of intellectual property protection and utilization work, and shall determine the total number of priority patent examinations in a coordinated manner based on actual needs and examination capacity.
Article 20 Each provincial-level intellectual property office shall formulate an implementation plan for priority examination recommendation in accordance with these Measures, adhering to the principle of promoting technological innovation and industrial application in key national or regional fields, clarifying recommendation standards, and establishing a dynamic inclusion, periodic review, and timely withdrawal management mechanism for recommended priority examination requesters. The management mechanism shall be fair, impartial, open, and transparent.
Each provincial-level intellectual property office shall regularly report its management status to the CNIPA.
Article 21 All stages of the recommendation, review, examination, and management of patent priority examination shall be subject to strengthened standardized control and checks and balances to effectively prevent corruption risks.
Article 22 For requesters or agents who violate the principle of good faith, the CNIPA shall not accept their priority examination requests for one year from the date the relevant conduct is determined.
Article 23 The CNIPA is responsible for interpreting these Measures.
Article 24 These Measures shall come into effect on [Date] 2026. The “Measures for the Administration of Patent Priority Examination” which came into effect on August 1, 2017, shall be repealed simultaneously.
