Six action suggestions for priority examination of patents on the enterprise side

2026-09-18
On July 28, 2026, the China National Intellectual Property Administration announced the newly revised Administrative Measures for Priority Examination of Patents (Order No. 85 of the China National Intellectual Property Administration, hereinafter referred to as the Measures), which will come into force on September 1, 2026, and the 2017 version of the Measures will be repealed at the same time. The revised "Measures" have expanded from 15 articles to 6 chapters and 24 articles, and the institutional orientation can be summarized in one sentence: priority review resources have shifted from "allocation based on application quantity" to "allocation based on innovation value".



For enterprises, this means prioritizing the review from universal acceleration tools to precise acceleration channels, which is a system arrangement that needs to be arranged in advance at all stages of project initiation, layout, application, and response. This article outlines the three core changes of the new regulations, explains their scope of application, and proposes six action suggestions from the perspective of enterprises.



1、 The three core changes of the new regulations
Firstly, from 'domain conformity' to value proof. Article 5 of the Measures sets a unified pre threshold beyond the five types of requestable situations - the application should have "significant innovative value and potential for transformation and application". Under the old regulations, it indicates that the technology belongs to the emerging industry field and has the required foundation; Under the new regulations, domain ownership is only an entry condition, and the essence of innovation and industrialization prospects are the determining factors.



Secondly, from "application and recommendation" to quota recommendation. Except for foreign-related situations, the letter of request for priority examination shall be signed by the relevant competent department of the State Council or the provincial intellectual property office for recommendation, and the China National Intellectual Property Administration shall review it according to the number allocated by each place (* Before the implementation of the new regulations, some provinces and cities have controlled the number of requests for priority examination in practice, and the rules and caliber of each place are inconsistent; this revision will clarify the recommendation and quota arrangement at the regulatory level). Before submitting a request, enterprises have added an external constraint on material preparation, including recommended work rules, quota arrangements, and material requirements.



Thirdly, from "program acceleration" to accountability investigation. Article 8 of the Measures stipulates for the first time four categories of situations where priority examination is generally not allowed, and clarifies the termination situation and credit consequences. Article 22 stipulates that if there is a violation of the principle of good faith, the requester shall not accept their priority examination request within one year from the date of self determination.




2、 Which cases can request priority review
Priority examination is not a universally open procedure for all patent applications. To determine whether a case is worth investing urgent resources in, enterprises can first consider three conditions: the type of case, the situation it belongs to, and the submission form and acceptance requirements.



1. Cases that can be requested
Article 4 of the Measures stipulates that priority examination can be requested for cases including: invention patent applications that are in the substantive examination stage and have not been processed for the first time; Utility model and design patent applications; And cases of reexamination and invalidation of invention, utility model, and design patents. The term 'not processed for the first time' refers to the fact that the examiner has started the examination and issued a notice, which in practice involves several types of notices such as the examination opinion notice, the avoidance of duplicate authorization notice, and the divisional notice. The specific determination shall be subject to the acceptance department.



2. The case should also fall under one of the following circumstances
(1) Involving emerging and future industries, or tackling key core technologies;

(2) Industries that are highly encouraged by provincial or district level municipal governments;

(3) It has already been industrialized or is ready for industrialization, or there is evidence to prove that others are implementing its invention or creation;

(4) The Chinese patent application that has been filed for the first time in China for the same subject matter, and then requests substantive examination in other countries or regions;

(5) Other situations of significant importance to national or public interests.



3、 Six action suggestions for enterprises
1. Incorporate priority review into project initiation and layout decisions, rather than expedited options after application

Article 4 of the Measures requires that a request be made for an invention patent application during the substantive examination stage and before the examiner has issued the initial examination opinion. The path of "applying for acceleration after receiving the examination opinion notification" is no longer feasible. Enterprises should synchronously determine which technological directions have the required conditions and value during the patent mining and layout stage, and incorporate urgent resources into the overall application rhythm, rather than making temporary decisions after the case enters the substantive examination.



2. Complete a negative list self check before making a request

In practice, the triggering frequency of the four types of situations in Article 8 of the Measures is not low: for divisional applications and the original application has been granted accelerated examination; On the same day, a utility model application for an invention patent was submitted for the same invention or creation; Those who have obtained priority review or other forms of accelerated review in the corresponding procedures; A request is made based on foreign-related circumstances, but there is evidence indicating that there is no prospect of authorization. The second item has the greatest impact - "dual application of invention and utility model on the same day" is mutually exclusive with the priority examination channel, and needs to be balanced in advance at the application strategy level.



3. Establish an evidence ledger for "Innovation Value Industrialization"

Proof of value relies on daily accumulation and cannot be temporarily organized before submitting a request. Suggest establishing a retention mechanism for three types of materials based on the case: research and development process materials, including project proposal documents, research and development investment records, and experimental and testing data; Industrial materials, including product orders, production records, sales contracts, investment and procurement vouchers during the implementation preparation stage; Technical progressiveness materials, including comparison with existing technologies, retrieval analysis reports, third-party testing or user verification conclusions. The determination of whether industrialization has been implemented or is ready for industrialization depends on the completeness and verifiability of the evidence, rather than the persuasiveness of the explanatory text.



4. Modify the process for a one month response period and finalize the claims before the request is made

The new regulations will adjust the deadline for responding to the notice of examination opinions on invention patents to one month. If no response is received within the deadline, the case will be processed through ordinary procedures; Proactive modification of application documents may result in termination of priority review eligibility. Based on this, two arrangements should be implemented: first, clarify the maximum time limit for internal circulation of review opinions, the responsible person for confirmation in the technical department, and the translation resources for foreign-related cases, and agree on the process in advance rather than compressing the time limit afterwards; The second is to complete the adjustment and finalization of the claims before making the request, and to complete the scope of protection and the hierarchical design of dependent claims in one go. If the application is still in the state of pending technical solutions and protection scope at the time of request, it is not suitable to occupy urgent resources in itself.



5. Entrust a professional intellectual property agency to write about the value of the quality realization channel

The new regulations significantly increase the requirement for "one-time molding" of application documents - the response period is compressed to one month, and active modifications are restricted, which means that defects in the writing stage have almost no remedial space in the priority examination procedure. The hierarchical design of the claims, the support and sufficient disclosure of the specification directly determine whether the acceleration channel can be converted into an authorization result. When choosing an agency, enterprises should focus on examining their practical experience in cultivating high-value patents, priority examination, and rapid pre-approval cases, as well as internal quality control and node management processes. Against the backdrop of the shift from quantitative growth to high-quality development in intellectual property work, the value of professional agencies lies in their precise grasp of the scope of protection and technical disclosure in the front-end writing, rather than simply speeding up the process.



6. The authenticity of the materials is ultimately the responsibility of the enterprise

The consequence of Article 22 of the Measures is clear: priority review requests will not be accepted within one year. Industrialization evidence must be truthful and traceable, and cannot be exchanged for expedited resources through fictitious implementation situations, piecing together related orders, or other means. Request materials are usually completed through collaboration among multiple parties, but the applicant bears the ultimate responsibility; The enterprise should verify the factual basis of the argument text formed by the agency, and should not use the professional level of the text to replace the authenticity of the facts.



4、 Other tips
1. Submission Form

The patent application or case requesting priority examination shall be filed electronically in accordance with the requirements.



2. Program red line: One month response period

The deadline for responding to the examination opinion notice of priority examination cases for inventions is one month; Those who fail to respond within the deadline will lose their eligibility for priority review, and the case will be transferred to ordinary procedures for handling. At the same time, proactive modifications to application documents may also result in termination of eligibility, and applications intended for priority review should have their claims system adjusted before making a request.

3. There are differences in practical operations in different regions
The Measures require provincial intellectual property bureaus to formulate rules for recommending work. There is not complete consistency in the specific practices of recommendation criteria, quota arrangements, and material forms among different regions, and some regions may also have pre registration processes such as subject filing in practice. Enterprises intending to make requests should confirm local requirements with the local intellectual property office or its agency before preparing materials.


Conclusion
Under the new Measures, priority examination is a precise acceleration channel for high-value patents and a specific landing point for the high-quality development of patent work in the procedural system. The focus of the enterprise's work should be shifted to before the application: value judgment, daily accumulation of evidence, pre arrangement of processes, quality of writing, and adherence to the bottom line of integrity. The maturity of the application and the completeness of the materials determine whether the enterprise can truly use this channel.


 
Zhongyi can provide full chain professional support for enterprises in patent screening and judgment, writing quality control, requesting material organization, and responding to examination opinions related to priority examination. If enterprises have relevant service needs, please feel free to contact us.

Return
Previous：Countdown to the New Trademark Law: Five Self-Audits Every Enterprise Should Complete on Its Trademark Assets Next：The "Four Lines of Defense" that Enterprises Must Build from the 15th China Intellectual Property Annual Conference