In order to promote the construction of an intellectual property powerhouse, serve innovation-driven development, improve the patent examination process, and give priority to the examination of some patent applications, reexamination and invalidation cases, the China National Intellectual Property Administration ("CNIPA") issued prioritized examination policy for invention patent applications ("Measures on Prioritized Examination Management for Invention Patent Applications") in 2012; in 2017, the prioritized examination policy extended to utility model and design patent applications ("Measures on Patent Prioritized Examination Management"), which is still in force; recently, the CNIPA issued "Revised Draft for Measures on Patent Prioritized Examination Management (Exposure Draft)" ("Draft") to improve the system and better serve the needs of national strategies and economic and social development. This article briefly introduces the current provisions of patent prioritized examination and the main amendment points of the newly published Draft for the reader’s reference.
1. Timing for Requesting Prioritized Examination
The Draft amends the timing for requesting prioritized examination for invention patent applications, to keep consistent with the practice. For other types of applications, reexamination and invalidation cases, there are no changes in the Draft.
The invention patent application for which prioritized examination is requested shall be in the substantive examination procedure. In practice, this examination status is further restricted to the period between the entry into substantive examination procedure and the issuance of the First Office Action ("first treatment"). The recently published Draft adjusted the current provisions to keep consistent with practice, i.e., invention patent applications for which prioritized examination is requested shall be in the substantive examination procedure and no first treatment has been made.
For utility model and design patent applications, prioritized examination shall be requested after the official filing fee is paid and the official receipt is issued. For reexamination cases of the invention, utility model and design patent applications, prioritized examination shall be requested after the official fee for requesting reexamination is paid and the official receipt of the reexamination request is issued. For invalidation cases of invention, utility models and design patents, prioritized examination shall be requested after the official fee for requesting invalidation is paid and the official docket number is assigned. For these, there are no changes in the Draft.
2. Requirements on Technical Field or Prerequisites
2.1 Patent Applications and Reexamination Cases:
The Draft emphasizes that the patent applications and reexamination cases for which prioritized examination is requested shall have important innovation values and clear transformation and utilization prospect. For foreign patent applications filed based on a Chinese application as mentioned in the following situation (5), the Draft adds the requirement of requesting substantive examination. Other adjustments are to keep consistent with practice or textual adjustments, such as merging situations (1) and (3) below and upgrading to key core technologies of key fields and key industries supported by the nation to keep consistent with practice. In practice, the CNIPA organizes and provides a reference document of national key development industries, which cover the above situations (1) and (3). For details, please see the following.
According to the current provisions, for the patent application or the patent reexamination case for which prioritized examination is requested, its technical field or other conditions shall meet one of the following situations:
[Draft amendment: The patent applications and reexamination cases for which prioritized examination is requested should have important innovation values and clear transformation and utilization prospects, and meet one of the following situations:]
(1) involving nationally prioritized industries, such as energy conservation and environment protection, new generation information technology, biology, high-end equipment manufacturing, new energy, new materials, new energy vehicles, intelligent manufacturing, etc.; [Draft amendment: this item is merged with item (3) to read: involving emerging industries and future industries primarily supported by the nation, or involving breakthrough of key core technologies in important areas.]
(2) involving industries encouraged by the provincial government or municipal government in cities with districts;
(3) involving the field of internet, big data, and cloud computing, etc. and its technique or product has a fast update speed; [Draft amendment: this item is merged with item 1]
(4) the patent applicant or the reexamination petitioner has got ready for exploiting or has already exploited the invention-creation for which the patent application is seeking protection in China, or there is evidence proving that others are exploiting the invention-creation in China; [Draft amendment: (3) The patent applicant or the reexamination petitioner has carried out industrialized implementation or has got ready for industrialized implementation, or has evidence proving that others are implementing their invention-creation]
(5) for the same subject matter, the Chinese patent application was first filed and then patent applications were filed in other countries or regions;[Draft amendment: (4) for the same subject matter, the Chinese patent application was first filed and then substantive examination was requested in other countries or regions];
(6) having great significance to the national interest or public interest that needs Prioritized Examination. [Draft amendment: the serial no. is adjusted to (5)]
2.2. Invalidation Cases
The Draft excludes invalidation cases involving patent infringement disputes where the parties requested arbitration mediation.
According to the current provisions, the invalidation case for which prioritized examination is requested shall meet either of the following situations:
(1) For infringement disputes over the patent involved in the invalidation case, the party has filed a request with the local intellectual property authority for handling, filed a lawsuit with the people's court or filed a request with the arbitration and mediation organization for arbitration and mediation;[Draft amendment: or filed a request with the arbitration and mediation organization for arbitration and mediation]
(2) The patent involved in the invalidation case is of great significance to the national or public interest.
3. Documents for Prioritized Examination
For the documents required for prioritized examination, the Draft does not make any substantive change. The following documents are required:
1) Applicant’s Declaration on Prioritized Examination (Stamped with official Seal, and with Signature Date);
2) Prior art; and
3) Certifying materials proving the situations mentioned in the above item 2 “Requirements on Technical Field or Prerequisites”, e.g., excerpts of key industry documents given by the CNIPA, documents issued by provincial government, documents proving the implementation, etc.
4. Examination and Number of Cases Approved for Prioritized Examination
In practice, the authorities will recommend invention patent applications of key technical fields and with high drafting quality based on the principles of "best-in-class". And, there is a cap on the number of cases approved for prioritized examination.
According to the current provisions: the number of patent applications, reexamination cases, invalidation cases approved for prioritized examination shall be determined by the CNIPA according to the examination capacity in different technical fields, the number of patents granted in the previous year, the number of cases to be examined in this year and other situations.
The Draft makes adjustments: the CNIPA allocates and adjusts the number of cases approved for prioritized examination in each region based on factors such as the management of prioritized examination work, recommendation of prioritized examination requests and subsequent examinations, and the protection and utilization of intellectual property rights in each region, and determines the total amount of cases approved for prioritized examination in a coordinated manner based on actual needs and examination capacity.
5. Timeline of Prioritized Examination
The Draft makes no change to the timeline of prioritized examination but adds exceptions for difficult technical or legal issues, and meanwhile shortens the time limit for the applicant to respond to an office action for invention patent applications. Details are as follows:
Where the CNIPA approves prioritized examination, the examination shall be finished within the following time limit from the date of approval: [Draft added: Except where it is determined that difficult technical or legal issues are involved]:
(1) For an invention patent application, the first office action shall be issued within forty five days and the case shall be closed within one year;
(2) Utility model and design patent applications shall be closed within two months;
(3) Reexamination case shall be closed within seven months;
(4) Invalidation cases against invention and utility model patents shall be closed within five months, and invalidation cases against design patents shall be closed within four months.
For a patent application under prioritized examination, the applicant shall make responses or corrections as soon as possible. The time limit for the applicant to respond to an office action (‘OA”) for an invention patent is two months from the issue date of the OA [Draft amendment: one month from the issue date of OA], and the time limit for the applicant to respond to a notification for a utility model or design patent application is fifteen days from the issue date the notification.
6. Termination of Prioritized Examination
The Draft makes a few amendments regarding the termination of prioritized examination and emphasizes compliance with the principle of honesty and good faith.
According to the current provisions, where the patent application under prioritized examination falls under one of the following circumstances, the CNIPA may terminate the prioritized examination and handle it under normal procedures, and notify the applicant in a timely manner:
(1) After the approval of prioritized examination, the applicant made amendment to the application documents;
(2) The applicant's response was made after the expiration of prescribed time limit [Draft adds: or the applicant requests an extension of the responding time limit];
(3) The applicant submits false materials [Draft adds: or conducts other acts violating the principle of honesty and good faith];
(4) The patent application is found abnormal during the examination process [Draft deletes this clause].
According to the current provisions, where the reexamination or invalidation case under prioritized examination falls under one of the following circumstances, the Patent Reexamination Board may terminate the prioritized examination, handle it under normal procedures, and notify the applicant in a timely manner:
(1) the reexamination petitioner makes a response by an extended time limit;
(2) after the approval of prioritized examination, the invalidation petitioner adds supplementary evidence and grounds; [Draft amendment: this item is merged with the following item (3) to read: After the request for priority examination is approved by the CNIPA, the invalidation petitioner adds supplementary evidence and grounds, or the patentee amends the claims in a manner other than deletion.]
(3) after the approval of prioritized examination, the patentee amends the claims in a manner other than deletion [Draft amendment: this item is merged with the above item (2)];
(4) the reexamination or invalidation procedure is suspended;[Draft amendment: the serial number is adjusted to (3)]
(5) the examination of the case depends on the examination conclusions of other cases;[Draft amendment: the serial number is adjusted to (4)]
(6) Difficult cases approved by the Director of the Patent Reexamination Board [Draft amendment: this item is deleted; and a new item is added: (5) the parties submit false materials, or conducts other acts violating the principle of honesty and good-faith].
7. Cases not Qualified for Prioritized Examination
As for cases not qualified for prioritized examination, there are two kinds in the current provisions, i.e. invention patent applications filed under dual-filing strategy and cases whose examination has been expedited through PPH, pre-examination or other expedition proceedings.
The draft adds two more kinds: any divisional application whose parent application has been given expedited examination; and any Chinese application first filed in China for which substantive examination on the same subject matter was then requested in other countries or regions and for which relevant materials indicate that there is no prospect for grant.
The Draft was published in late February 2026 seeking opinion from all sectors of society. The public opinion can be submitted to the CNIPA by 30 March 2026.
This is a summary of the basic rules for prioritized examination and the key points of the Draft. If you have any questions on prioritized examination, please feel free to contact us at patent@afdip.com; bhtdlaw@bhtdlaw.com.
