Recent guidelines from the China National Intellectual Property Administration, effective Jan. 1, have again put the spotlight on the value of Chinese utility models and the interplay between utility models and conventional Chinese patents.[1]
Utility models have historically attracted less attention than conventional invention patents in multinational patent portfolio planning. Yet with an enduring and, in many cases, growing Chinese presence in key sectors including electric vehicles, batteries, semiconductors, renewables, clean tech and telecommunications, utility models are gaining renewed strategic relevance.
Most importantly, utility models provide enforceable, valuable rights on comparatively short timelines and at relatively modest cost.
Additionally, new CNIPA patent examination guidelines addressing issues such as same-day dual filing, the mandatory abandonment of a utility model upon grant of a related invention patent, and clearer rules on invalidation proceedings, show that the utility model framework is becoming more organized.
Recent developments also suggest they may play a broader role than merely serving as defensive filings. In particular, utility models may influence cross-border licensing, settlement dynamics and supply-chain risk management, including usefulness as business leverage for disputes even where the underlying points of contention originate outside of China.
This article provides an overview of Chinese utility models, describes how companies can acquire these business assets through direct filings or the Patent Cooperation Treaty, or PCT, evaluates their examination and enforcement frameworks, and discusses why they may merit closer consideration, especially for device-focused innovations where structural design features drive commercial or business value.
Understanding the Nature of Chinese Utility Models
China distinguishes among invention patents, utility models and design patents, each with different examination requirements and subject-matter constraints. Utility models are generally directed to product-based technological solutions defined by shape, structure or a combination of both, as specified in Article 2 of the Patent Law of the People’s Republic of China.[2]
Unlike invention patents, which may include methods, compositions, software-implemented processes and a broader range of technical subject matter, or design patents that protect ornamental features, utility models are intended for apparatus-based claims that can be characterized structurally.
This structural focus allows utility models to proceed through preliminary and generally substantive examinations. In other words, the CNIPA applies fewer hurdles during prosecution, and utility models generally issue faster than invention patents, often in fewer than 12 months from filing and, in many cases, within six to eight months.
Such attributes make utility models particularly appealing for industries such as consumer electronics, mechanical devices, automotive components, and electrical assemblies, where rapid product turnover is common.
The ability to rapidly and cheaply obtain a utility model patent as a tangible corporate asset, which can then be wielded to achieve business objectives related to keeping competitors away from one’s latest technology, is an efficient mechanism that emerging tech companies would do well to consider.
Filing Routes: Direct Chinese Filings and PCT National Phase Entry
Companies generally obtain utility models through two procedural paths: direct filings under the Paris Convention or national phase entry of a PCT application.
Direct filing permits an applicant relying on an earlier foreign filing to file a Chinese application within 12 months of the priority date under the Paris Convention.[3] When filing directly in China, applicants may select a utility model application, an invention patent application, or both, provided the filings occur on the same day and relate to the same subject matter.
This same-day dual filing mechanism is distinctive to Chinese practice and is authorized under Article 9 of the Chinese Patent Law.[4] Such a mechanism allows an applicant to secure a utility model patent quickly while pursuing an invention patent application for long-term coverage.
Furthermore, the revised CNIPA Guidelines for Patent Examination continue to permit same-day dual filings, but once the invention patent application is allowed, the applicant must formally abandon the corresponding utility model.
Applicants are also required to disclose at the time of filing that they are pursuing concurrent invention patent and utility model applications for the same subject matter.
If the applicant declines to abandon the utility model, the invention patent application will be rejected, and if no response is provided within the prescribed period, the invention patent application will be treated as withdrawn.
China is also a contracting state to the PCT, permitting international applicants, particularly U.S. and European companies, to enter the Chinese national stage within approximately 30 months of the priority date.
At national phase entry, however, applicants generally proceed with a utility model application or an invention patent application, as the CNIPA does not allow the grant of both forms of protection from a single PCT application.
As a result, companies relying solely on the PCT route may inadvertently lose the opportunity for early utility-model protection unless they file a separate direct utility model application within the priority year.
Such a gap can be particularly consequential in sectors such as consumer electronics and automotive components, where assembly or key suppliers are located in China, and new designs may be exposed to copycat production or unauthorized exports well before an invention patent is granted.
Amendments and the Scope of Examination
Because utility models undergo only a preliminary examination, the scope for pregrant amendment is limited. CNIPA may allow amendments to clarify structural relationships or address non-utility-model-eligible subject matter during formalities review.
Post-grant amendments are far more restricted and usually arise only in invalidation proceedings before the Patent Reexamination and Invalidation Department, governed by Article 33 of the Patent Law.[5]
Given such limitations, careful drafting, particularly with respect to structural details, component relationships and supporting drawings, plays a central role in determining enforceability and validity outcomes.
Enforcement of Utility Models in China
Utility model enforcement often begins with the patent right evaluation report, a nonbinding assessment issued by the CNIPA that evaluates novelty and inventiveness. Courts and administrative agencies frequently rely on the report when deciding whether to accept an infringement case or adopt interim measures.
After obtaining a report, a utility model holder may pursue civil litigation before specialized IP courts, administrative enforcement before local intellectual property offices, takedown actions on major e-commerce platforms, or customs actions for the seizure of infringing goods under China’s Regulations on Customs Protection of Intellectual Property Rights.
For international rights holders, these enforcement mechanisms can be particularly relevant in cross-border contexts, especially where Chinese-based manufacturing forms part of a global supply chain. In such cases, timely local enforcement may help prevent infringing goods from entering foreign markets or affecting parallel disputes abroad.
A distinguishing feature of Chinese enforcement is the separation of validity and infringement. The CNIPA adjudicates validity disputes through invalidation proceedings, while courts or administrative authorities determine infringement.
Under the amended guidelines, invalidation requests must be filed by the real interested party, as the CNIPA will dismiss petitions that do not reflect the petitioner’s true intent, and patent agencies or attorneys are barred from acting as petitioners.
Because invalidation may occur in parallel with enforcement, the structural clarity of the claims and the supporting disclosure often prove decisive, as any weakness in claim support or technical detail can be raised in an invalidation challenge while enforcement is underway.
Chinese courts apply a literal, structure-oriented approach to claim interpretation, giving limited weight to functional language unless closely supported by disclosed embodiments.
Why Utility Models Matter: Speed, Cost and Strategic Leverage
Utility models provide several advantages that may be particularly attractive in fast-moving technology markets. Their most immediate appeal lies in their rapid grant and low cost. For companies concerned about knockoffs, unauthorized manufacturing or rapid competitor entry, securing enforceable rights in under a year may provide valuable early protection.
Utility models may also bridge the protection gap inherent in PCT filings. Because PCT national phase entry occurs approximately 30 months from priority, applicants may experience a significant period in which they possess no enforceable Chinese patent rights. Filing a direct utility model application within the priority year can provide coverage during this interim.
Utility models may likewise influence cross-border disputes. Even where litigation or other business negotiation or dispute occurs in the U.S., Europe, or before the Unified Patent Court, a company’s dependence on Chinese manufacturing or distribution may create leverage for a party holding a relevant utility model.
A structurally focused utility model directed to a device in an adjacent product line may shape settlement negotiations, particularly where alternative supply-chain options are limited.
Utility models also act as a deterrent against unauthorized production, misuse of tooling or parallel manufacturing by suppliers. Administrative enforcement mechanisms allow for relatively rapid intervention, which may be valuable when managing supply chain integrity, which provides significant business value for such a readily obtainable asset.
Practical Guidance for Businesses and Counsel
A utility model may be particularly appropriate when an invention relates to mechanical, electrical or structural design, for situations where early enforcement is commercially important, for products with short life cycles, or for technologies manufactured or sold extensively in China. In this regard, pairing a utility model with an invention patent through same-day dual filing may provide immediate protection and long-term strategic depth.
Standard Chinese invention patents, by contrast, may be preferable for innovations involving methods, algorithms or software-implemented functionality, for situations where broader claim scope is desired, or for applicants entering China solely through the PCT route who must choose between utility model and invention protection applications.
Because utility models are interpreted with strong emphasis on structural detail, effective drafting includes clearly disclosed embodiments, mechanical relationships, spatial configurations and component interactions. A carefully drafted utility model is more likely to withstand invalidation and provide meaningful leverage if enforcement is required.
Limitations and Relevant Considerations
Despite their advantages, utility models have certain limitations relative to Chinese invention patents. For example, the utility model term is 10 years from filing rather than 20, their subject matter is more narrowly constrained and their claim scope is often less flexible.
Enforcement may also hinge on the patent right evaluation report, and invalidation challenges often proceed quickly once enforcement begins.
For these reasons, in some instances many companies rely on utility models as complementary rights rather than replacements for invention patents.
Conclusion
As China continues to occupy a central position in global manufacturing and many international supply chains, and with recent CNIPA guidelines reshaping utility model practice, companies may benefit from reassessing the role of utility models within their broader intellectual property strategies.
A utility model’s combination of rapid grant, structural-claim focus and low cost may deliver significant strategic advantages both within China and in multijurisdictional negotiations.
Whether used to protect emerging product features, enhance a PCT-based filing strategy or shape settlement dynamics in foreign disputes, Chinese utility models appear increasingly worthy of consideration as part of a balanced patent portfolio.
[1] “CNIPA: Revised Patent Examination Guidelines,” effective January 1, 2026, site: cnipa.gov.cn.
[2] Patent Law of the People’s Republic of China (2020 Amendment), Art. 2. https://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/legislation/details/21027.
[3] Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, Art. 4. https://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/text/288514.
[4] Patent Law of the People’s Republic of China, Art. 9 (dual filing). https://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/legislation/details/21027.
[5] Patent Law of the People’s Republic of China, Art. 33 (post-grant amendments). https://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/legislation/details/21027.
本文最初发表于 Law360 2026年1月8日，经授权在此转载。
