China has witnessed a profound shift in awareness regarding patent protection for agrochemicals, thereby fostering technological innovation within the industry.

Release Date:

2019-10-09

　　2019 marked the 70th anniversary of the founding of the People’s Republic of China and the 34th year since the implementation of China’s Patent Law. Pesticide The Intellectual Property and Technological Innovation Summit Forum has also been successfully held for eight sessions. According to the “Statistical Classification of Intellectual Property (Patent)-Intensive Industries (2019)” released by the National Bureau of Statistics, chemistry… Pesticide Manufacturing, Biochemistry Pesticide and microorganisms Pesticide Manufacturing is an intellectual property (patent)-intensive industry, indicating that… Pesticide An industrial cluster that meets the prescribed standards for the density and scale of invention patents, leverages intellectual property to compete in the market, and aligns with an innovation-driven development strategy.
　　Since the implementation of the National Intellectual Property Strategy in 2008, China… Pesticide The number of patent applications in this field has shown explosive growth. This paper reviews China’s… Pesticide The shift in the industry’s awareness of patent application and protection is helping China. Pesticide Technological innovation and sound development in the industry.
　　I. The Period of Patent Protection Gaps
　　Prior to the implementation of China’s Patent Law, intellectual property protection in China was virtually nonexistent. The defining feature of this period was the publication of academic research findings as scholarly articles in domestic and international journals, thereby asserting researchers’ “right of possession” or “right of authorship” over their work. A quintessential example is artemisinin, discovered by Tu Youyou, who was awarded the 2015 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine; the absence of effective intellectual property protection for artemisinin epitomized the broader vacuum in IP enforcement at the time.
　　China is a major agricultural country, Pesticide Its use plays a pivotal role in agricultural production. China, for… Pesticide Research and development efforts began in the early 1960s. Through the arduous efforts of researchers, a series of outstanding products were subsequently developed, including ethyl allyl disulfide, jinggangmycin, carbendazim, and dichlorvos, among others. Pesticide Variety. However, these research outcomes, which embody substantial scientific and technological innovation, were developed prior to the promulgation of China’s Patent Law. The researchers merely published academic papers and did not file any applications for intellectual property protection. This, in turn, made it difficult for China, in the years following the enactment of the Patent Law, to strike a balance between publishing scholarly articles and filing patent applications, with patent applications often being adversely affected by earlier publications during the examination process for determining patentability.
　　II. The Early Stages of Patent Protection
　　China’s Patent Law came into effect on April 1, 1985. The growing awareness of intellectual property protection swept through the research community like a spring breeze, and mere hearsay or sporadic exposure to the Patent Law often served as the initial introduction for researchers seeking to safeguard their intellectual property. However, precisely because of the lack of in-depth study and systematic research into the Patent Law, a significant number of patent applications were rejected. For example, filing a patent application for a product that had already been manufactured and marketed resulted in the public disclosure of its use, thereby undermining the novelty requirement for patentability. Pesticide It is a quintessential experimental science; however, the specification of the patent application fails to disclose experimental data demonstrating the product’s intended use or efficacy, resulting in the technical solution lacking the utility required under the Patent Law, or in insufficient disclosure, among other issues—problems that are all too common.
　　At the very outset of the Patent Law’s enactment, researchers exhibited a strong enthusiasm for filing patent applications. The defining feature of this period was an overemphasis on filing while neglecting examination and protection. Influenced by the pre‑implementation focus on publishing articles, researchers would promptly release their findings in scholarly papers, often overlooking the timeliness of patent applications. This frequently resulted in prior publications by the inventors themselves, thereby undermining the novelty or inventive step of subsequently filed patent applications. Moreover, a lack of clear understanding of the grace period for maintaining novelty led to inadvertent public disclosure of technical solutions at academic conferences, further jeopardizing the novelty of later patent filings. Such errors were numerous and varied.
　　However, after reflection, R&D personnel have begun to balance the timing of filing patent applications and publishing academic papers, opting either to file both on the same day or to wait until the patent application date is secured before releasing their findings. Due to a tendency to underestimate the examination process, the rate of patent applications being deemed withdrawn remains relatively high. In some cases, particularly for technologies with strong market potential, an application is automatically considered withdrawn if the applicant fails to respond to the examiner’s first office action. R&D staff often harbor a degree of hostility toward the examination process, perceiving it as deliberate obstruction or even intentional harassment. Yet the root cause of these issues lies in insufficient in-depth study and understanding of the Patent Law and the Patent Examination Guidelines. When responding to examination opinions and amending application documents, R&D personnel increasingly rely on the advice of patent agents to craft targeted replies. A key oversight in protection strategies manifests in prioritizing grantability over the scope of protection; sometimes, the technical solutions granted patents are limited to isolated embodiments. Moreover, once granted, these patents are typically used internally, with little awareness of patent‑based commercialization or strategic exploitation.
　　Another salient issue is that R&D personnel often neglect to conduct prior‑art searches, relying instead on their own existing knowledge to drive innovation. This failure to gain a comprehensive understanding of the state of the art can result in painstakingly developed inventions being undermined by prior‑art documents that challenge the novelty or inventive step of the claimed solution—effectively duplicating the work of others. Following numerous lessons learned from similar cases, R&D teams have come to recognize the critical importance of conducting thorough prior‑art searches and have realized that further innovation should build upon what already exists. Only by standing on the shoulders of those who came before can one see farther.
　　III. Stages of Patent Protection Development
　　Since the 2008 amendment to the Patent Law, China’s patent protection system has been steadily refined, with increasingly robust safeguards and a burgeoning patent‑related market. The defining feature of this phase is a strong emphasis on filing applications, rigorous examination, effective protection, and the nascent development of patent‑based commercialization. Benefiting from favorable policies, patent filings have risen year after year, the quality of patent drafting has improved markedly, and the number of patents granted has also grown annually. The scope of patent protection has evolved from isolated rights to comprehensive, portfolio‑level coverage, accompanied by heightened litigation activity in response to infringement. At the same time, awareness of patent‑based business strategies continues to strengthen.
　　Thanks to the in-depth study of the Patent Law and the Patent Examination Guidelines by R&D personnel, they have employed selective inventions to screen for new compounds, thereby developing more than 20 fungicides, including flumorph and dimethomorph. Following the public disclosure of each new compound, they have further utilized combinatorial inventions to identify and optimize formulated compositions, actively pursuing… Pesticide Patent strategies are being employed for compound formulations; for example, there have been instances where two applicants have sought to claim the same technical solution—a herbicidal composition comprising bensulfuron‑methyl and oxaziclomefone. One patent has application number CN201110129507, filed on May 18, 2011, and granted on April 2, 2014; the other has application number CN201010552894, filed on November 19, 2010, and granted on March 5, 2014.
　　R&D professionals not only vie for patent rights but also leverage provisions in the implementing rules of patent law to submit third-party review opinions to patent authorities regarding others’ patent applications, thereby blocking competitors from obtaining patents. Alternatively, after a patent has been granted, they may invoke invalidation proceedings to challenge and seek the revocation of that patent. During the patent examination process, R&D personnel and examiners typically engage in debates over the technical substance and its effects, approaching substantive patent examination from both technical and legal perspectives. As a result, R&D professionals are better able to view the examiner’s office actions with greater objectivity and composure. Building on prior patent‑holding experience, preventing patent infringement has increasingly become a widely observed industry norm; at trade shows, for instance, any products found to infringe others’ patents are promptly removed, and the infringer is held accountable. Meanwhile, sound practices in patent commercialization are gradually emerging—for example, Guizhou University has licensed the patent for difluorophosphonate to Guangxi Tianyuan and assisted it in product development, while East China University of Science and Technology has collaborated with Kesheng Group to develop piperidinyl compounds, among other initiatives—thus contributing to China’s… Pesticide Technological innovation in the industry serves as a powerful source of inspiration.
　　IV. Conclusion
　　Although China’s patent protection system has been in place for just over 30 years, China… Pesticide The industry’s awareness of patent‑filing and protection has undergone a significant transformation and has yielded notable results; however, it remains in a stage of ongoing development. R&D personnel should deepen their understanding of the Patent Law and treat it as an essential legal tool. They should place great emphasis on conducting thorough prior‑art searches and leveraging the findings to guide technology development, define research directions and set clear objectives. Furthermore, they should strategically file patents for their R&D outcomes through patent mining and portfolio management, and proactively enforce and manage their patent rights.