CNIPA Releases Draft Amendments to the Measures for the Administration of Patent Priority Examination for Public Comment
Published 3 March 2026
Yu Du
On 27 February 2026, the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) released its Draft Amendments to the Measures for the Administration of Patent Priority Examination, inviting public comments until 30 March 2026.
The current Measures for the Administration of Patent Priority Examination [ https://www.cnipa.gov.cn/art/2020/6/5/art_1564_93037.html ] came into effect on 1 August 2017. Since then, the number of priority examination cases has steadily increased, improving examination speed in selected fields. However, changes in filing patterns and growing examination workloads have revealed the need to refine eligibility standards, case selection mechanisms, and overall quality control.
The present revision aims to better focus priority examination resources on applications with substantial technical value and clear commercialization prospects, strengthen management of recommendation and quota allocation mechanisms, improve procedural clarity and predictability, and ensure that efficiency gains do not come at the expense of examination quality.
Scope and Eligibility
Under the current 2017 Measures, invention patent applications in substantive examination may request priority examination without an explicit restriction tied to whether a first Office Action has been issued. The draft narrows this window by providing that only invention applications that have entered substantive examination and have not yet received a first official action are eligible. This clarification standardizes the timing of requests and prevents acceleration once substantive review has already advanced.
The eligibility standards themselves are also restructured. The current rules list various qualifying categories, including key industrial sectors, rapidly evolving technologies such as internet and big data, implementation readiness, overseas filing strategies, or matters of major public interest. The draft replaces this more category-based approach with a value-oriented standard requiring significant innovative value and clear prospects for commercialization or industrial application. It refocuses priority examination on emerging industries, future industries, and key core technological projects, thereby raising the substantive threshold for access.
With respect to invalidation proceedings, the current version allows priority requests in a broader range of circumstances, including references to arbitration and mediation bodies. The draft refines the scope by concentrating on cases connected to administrative enforcement or court litigation and removes references to arbitration and mediation institutions. In addition, the draft expressly enumerates circumstances in which priority examination will generally not be granted, such as repeat acceleration or cases lacking authorization prospects.
Procedures and Timelines
In terms of filing requirements, the 2017 version requires applicants to submit prior art or prior design information materials when requesting priority examination. The draft relaxes this requirement by making the submission of such materials optional, thereby reducing procedural burdens. It also clarifies that no additional official fee will be charged beyond statutory fees.
The core examination timelines remain largely unchanged. Invention patent applications must receive a first action within 45 days and be concluded within one year, while utility model and design applications must be concluded within two months. Reexamination and invalidation proceedings continue to follow accelerated statutory time limits. The draft, however, clarifies that exceptions may apply in cases involving complex technical or legal issues, introducing greater procedural flexibility.
A notable change concerns applicant response periods. Under the 2017 Measures, applicants had two months to respond to an Office Action in invention cases under priority examination. The draft shortens this period to one month, reinforcing the accelerated character of the procedure and placing greater responsibility on applicants to respond promptly.
Comment
The proposed amendments indicate a shift from broadly available acceleration to more selective acceleration. If adopted, the revised framework may result in more controlled case volumes. For applicants, the boundaries of the system will become clearer, although the threshold for obtaining priority status may increase. Overall, the changes are likely to allow examination capacity to be directed toward patent applications with stronger technical and commercial significance.
The current Measures for the Administration of Patent Priority Examination [ https://www.cnipa.gov.cn/art/2020/6/5/art_1564_93037.html ] came into effect on 1 August 2017. Since then, the number of priority examination cases has steadily increased, improving examination speed in selected fields. However, changes in filing patterns and growing examination workloads have revealed the need to refine eligibility standards, case selection mechanisms, and overall quality control.
The present revision aims to better focus priority examination resources on applications with substantial technical value and clear commercialization prospects, strengthen management of recommendation and quota allocation mechanisms, improve procedural clarity and predictability, and ensure that efficiency gains do not come at the expense of examination quality.
Scope and Eligibility
Under the current 2017 Measures, invention patent applications in substantive examination may request priority examination without an explicit restriction tied to whether a first Office Action has been issued. The draft narrows this window by providing that only invention applications that have entered substantive examination and have not yet received a first official action are eligible. This clarification standardizes the timing of requests and prevents acceleration once substantive review has already advanced.
The eligibility standards themselves are also restructured. The current rules list various qualifying categories, including key industrial sectors, rapidly evolving technologies such as internet and big data, implementation readiness, overseas filing strategies, or matters of major public interest. The draft replaces this more category-based approach with a value-oriented standard requiring significant innovative value and clear prospects for commercialization or industrial application. It refocuses priority examination on emerging industries, future industries, and key core technological projects, thereby raising the substantive threshold for access.
With respect to invalidation proceedings, the current version allows priority requests in a broader range of circumstances, including references to arbitration and mediation bodies. The draft refines the scope by concentrating on cases connected to administrative enforcement or court litigation and removes references to arbitration and mediation institutions. In addition, the draft expressly enumerates circumstances in which priority examination will generally not be granted, such as repeat acceleration or cases lacking authorization prospects.
Procedures and Timelines
In terms of filing requirements, the 2017 version requires applicants to submit prior art or prior design information materials when requesting priority examination. The draft relaxes this requirement by making the submission of such materials optional, thereby reducing procedural burdens. It also clarifies that no additional official fee will be charged beyond statutory fees.
The core examination timelines remain largely unchanged. Invention patent applications must receive a first action within 45 days and be concluded within one year, while utility model and design applications must be concluded within two months. Reexamination and invalidation proceedings continue to follow accelerated statutory time limits. The draft, however, clarifies that exceptions may apply in cases involving complex technical or legal issues, introducing greater procedural flexibility.
A notable change concerns applicant response periods. Under the 2017 Measures, applicants had two months to respond to an Office Action in invention cases under priority examination. The draft shortens this period to one month, reinforcing the accelerated character of the procedure and placing greater responsibility on applicants to respond promptly.
Comment
The proposed amendments indicate a shift from broadly available acceleration to more selective acceleration. If adopted, the revised framework may result in more controlled case volumes. For applicants, the boundaries of the system will become clearer, although the threshold for obtaining priority status may increase. Overall, the changes are likely to allow examination capacity to be directed toward patent applications with stronger technical and commercial significance.