In brief
The Intellectual Property Office of Singapore (IPOS) has launched a public consultation seeking feedback on proposed updates across the patent, trademark, registered design, plant variety protection and geographical indication regimes. The consultation will run from 15 October 2025 to 25 November 2025, following a two-week extension. The proposals aim to streamline procedures, improve legal certainty and support users of the IP system in an increasingly competitive innovation landscape. The consultation paper can be found here, and feedback can be submitted here.
In more detail
Patents — efficiency and clarity in examination and enforcement
Applicants commonly provide a “basis” indicating where support exists for amended patent claims, but this is currently voluntary. IPOS proposes making this mandatory, with concise, non-extendable deadlines to help examiners assess added-matter issues more efficiently.
Section 68 of the Patents Act currently only implements the reverse burden of proof where the patented process results in a “new” product. IPOS proposes clarifying that the presumption may also apply where there is a substantial likelihood that the infringing product used the patented process, aligning more closely with the standard set out in the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) Agreement.
Trademarks — final examination reports to resolve impasses
Where an application repeatedly fails to overcome objections, IPOS proposes issuing a final examination report, limiting the applicant to either (i) removing the objectionable goods/service or (ii) requesting a hearing. This is intended to avoid prolonged back-and-forth communications without progress. Relief measures (e.g., extensions and continued processing) will be available under specified conditions.
Hearings and mediation — aligning timelines and improving procedural certainty
IPOS proposes that deadlines in opposition and objection proceedings for geographic indications be lengthened to align with those in trademark cases, as this would provide parties with a more realistic time frame to prepare submissions.
IPOS also proposes tightening the rules on late filings, particularly notices of opposition and counterstatements, while expressly enabling cost awards where delays cause prejudice. The costs framework for contentious proceedings will be refreshed and harmonized across all IP rights, with scope for off-scale costs in exceptional cases. For instance, there is a proposal to empower the registrar to award costs without requiring an interlocutory hearing.
Cross-IP proposals — filing flexibility and emergency extensions
IPOS proposes that electronic filings made on nonbusiness days receive a same-day filing date — aligning with major international offices. This would help applicants secure priority rights in time-critical situations.
The emergency extensions introduced during COVID-19 are to be retained but narrowed, applying only where delays stem from circumstances beyond a party’s control.
Key takeaways
IPOS is actively seeking feedback to ensure that the reforms are practical and aligned with industry needs. The consultation signals IPOS’ continuing efforts to modernize Singapore’s IP system, improving predictability, responsiveness and efficiency across the life cycle of rights. The proposed changes are intended to enhance legal certainty and provide clarity on the burden of proof, and procedural timelines reduce ambiguity for IP stakeholders.
Rights holders and practitioners may wish to consider how these changes could affect their filing strategy, timelines and enforcement planning. We are monitoring the consultation closely and are ready to assist clients in assessing the potential impact of the proposals and engaging with the feedback process, where helpful.
* * * * *
© 2025 Baker & McKenzie. Wong & Leow. All rights reserved. Baker & McKenzie. Wong & Leow is incorporated with limited liability and is a member firm of Baker & McKenzie International, a global law firm with member law firms around the world. In accordance with the common terminology used in professional service organizations, reference to a "principal" means a person who is a partner, or equivalent, in such a law firm. Similarly, reference to an "office" means an office of any such law firm. This may qualify as "Attorney Advertising" requiring notice in some jurisdictions. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.