On March 31, 2026, China’s National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) issued a warning against using AI agents, such an OpenClaw, in drafting patent application documents (关于使用OpenClaw等智能体撰写专利申请文件的风险提示). Further, unauthorized use by patent agencies should be reported. CNIPA says using agents may lead to technical information leakage, substantial defects including AI hallucinations, and dishonest (bad faith) applications.
China’s State Administration for Market Regulation To Explore Extraterritorial Enforcement of Anti-Unfair Competition Law
On March 30, 2026, China’s State Administration for Market Regulation (SAMR) released the Notice on Further Implementing the Anti-Unfair Competition Law of the People’s Republic of China (市场监管总局关于进一步贯彻实施《中华人民共和国反不正当竞争法》的通知). The Anti-Unfair Competition Law is used to protect trade secrets and other unregistered intellectual property (e.g., marks, artificial intelligence models, etc.). SAMR provides administrative enforcement of laws outside of the court system. Two highlights of this recent Notice include strengthening the protection of trade secrets and exploring extraterritorial enforcement of the Anti-Unfair …
CNIPA 2026 Budget – CNIPA to Examine ≥ 2.30 Million Patent Applications in 2026
On March 26, 2026, China’s National Intellectual Property Office (CNIPA) released their 2026 Budget (国家知识产权局2026年部门预算). In 2026, CNIPA plans to examine ≥ 2.30 million patent applications (up 274,000 from 2025) and ≥ 6.28 million trademark applications. CNIPA is aiming for ≥ 5,000 applicants to pass the patent bar examination (up 500 from 2025). Other data points follow. The full Budget is available here (Chinese only).
China’s Supreme People’s Court Releases Sixth Batch of Typical Cases of Judicial Protection of Intellectual Property Rights in the Seed Industry
On March 26, 2026, China’s Supreme People’s Court (SPC) released the Sixth Batch of Typical Cases of Judicial Protection of Intellectual Property Rights in the Seed Industry (人民法院种业知识产权司法保护典型案例（第六批）). Typical cases are issued to guide lower courts, unify judgment standards, and promote policy goals. They serve as “soft law” to fill gaps in legislation, harmonize decisions nationwide, and align judicial outcomes with specific government policies.