IPOS Consults on Proposed Changes to Intellectual Property Regime

Introduction

Singapore stands as a hub for intellectual property (“IP“), supported by a robust legal framework, strong IP protection, and efficient processes. To maintain its competitiveness and buttress its position as a regional leader, Singapore is continually reviewing its IP regime to identify areas for improvement and update.

As part of its review process, the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore (“IPOS“) is seeking public feedback on proposed changes targeting potential improvements across the patents, trade marks, registered designs, plant varieties and geographical indications regimes. The public consultation will be conducted from 10 October to 11 November 2025.

The proposed amendments cover the following areas:

1. 1. Patents
   2. Trade marks
   3. Hearings and mediation
   4. Other cross-IP areas

This Update highlights the key features of the proposed amendments and how they will affect the existing IP processes.

Patents

Requirement for Basis for Amendments

Applications may be filed to amend the specification of a patent or application for a patent. Currently, applicants and proprietors are encouraged to indicate specific parts of the application as filed that support their amendments (“basis for amendments“).

To facilitate Examiners’ assessment of the amendments and improve the speed of examination, IPOS proposes to formalise the requirement for an applicant to submit the basis for amendments.

• • If an applicant does not provide any basis for amendments, the Registrar will issue a letter requiring its submission within one month from the Registrar’s letter.
  • If the basis submitted at first instance is incomplete or incorrect, the Registrar may require the applicant to resubmit the basis for amendments within one month from the Registrar’s letter.
  • Failure to submit the basis for amendment within the applicable deadline will result in the refusal of the amendment.

Reversal of Burden of Proof in Patent Infringement Proceedings

Section 68(1) of the Patents Act 1994 currently provides for the burden of proof in patent infringement proceedings: Where the subject matter of the patent is a process for obtaining a new product, the alleged infringer bears the burden of proving that a product is not made by the process if: (i) the product is new (“New Product Scenario“); or (ii) a substantial likelihood exists that the product is made by the process and the proprietor of the patent has been unable through reasonable efforts to determine the process actually used (“Substantial Likelihood Scenario“).

IPOS proposes to amend this provision to clarify that the rebuttable presumption (that the product is made by the process) could apply to both the New Product Scenario as well as the Substantial Likelihood Scenario.

Trade Marks

Final Examination Report

IPOS intends to review the available options to respond to an examination report for a trade mark application to provide more clarity on the examination process, particularly where there are unsuccessful rounds of submissions from the applicant, resulting in an impasse between the applicant and the Registrar. 

IPOS proposes to implement the issuance of a Final Examination Report (“FER“):

• • This will apply to cases where: (i) the applicant’s further submissions repeat arguments which have been canvassed before; or (ii) an application is obviously non-registrable and the applicant’s response to the first examination report is unable to persuade the Registrar on the merits of the application.
  • The FER will notify the applicant of the Registrar’s overall assessment and specify the options for the applicant’s response, which must be provided within a period of four months. The applicant may request a one-time extension of three months before the expiry of the deadline.
  • Failure to observe the above timelines will result in the application in respect of the objectionable goods/services being treated as withdrawn. In such case, the applicant may still request the continued processing of the application within an additional two months (non-extendable).

Hearings and Mediation

Geographical Indications Proceedings

IPOS proposes to extend the deadlines in geographical indications proceedings to be consistent with trade marks. The revised deadlines will be as follows:

• • Notice of objection or opposition: Two months after date of publication
  • Extension of time allowed to file notice of objection or opposition: Not exceeding four months after date of publication
  • Counter-statement: Two months after date of receipt of notice of objection or opposition
  • Extension of time allowed to file counter-statement: Not exceeding four months after date of receipt of notice of objection or opposition

IPOS also proposes to provide a right of appeal to the General Division of the High Court against the Registrar’s decision in any interlocutory proceedings between two or more parties if the decision terminates any matter concerning a geographical indication or an application for a geographical indication.

Extensions of Time for Filing

IPOS proposes to amend the law for trade marks and geographical indications with regard to extensions of time to file notice of opposition or objection, counterstatement and evidence.

• • For extension of time to file notice of opposition or objection: Deadlines will not be extendable once missed.
  • For extension of time to file counter-statement: (i) Requests for extension of time will be allowed to be filed after expiry of deadline, before the status of the application has been updated to “treated as withdrawn”; (ii) The Registrar will have no discretion to extend time where the status of the application has been updated to “treated as withdrawn” or the extension would go beyond the maximum period of four months; and (iii) The Registrar’s power to award costs to the innocent party, without the pre-requisite of an interlocutory hearing, will be explicitly recognised.
  • For extension of time to file evidence: (i) Requests for extension of time will be allowed to be filed after expiry of deadline, before the status of the opposition/application has been updated to “treated as withdrawn”; (ii) The requestor for extension of time will be required to give a reason for the request only being made after the expiry of the deadline, and the Registrar may refuse to grant extension of time if such reason is not good and sufficient; and (iii) The Registrar’s power to award costs to the innocent party, without the pre-requisite of an interlocutory hearing, will be explicitly recognised.

Scale of Costs

At the end of a case, the Registrar may award costs to the winning party. IPOS proposes to update the scale of costs for trade marks. For all IP, the Registrar will also have a new power to award off-scale costs.

IPOS also proposes to update the scale of costs for patents, designs, plant varieties and geographical indications to equal the proposed amounts for trade marks. The full list of proposed amounts is available in IPOS’ consultation paper here.

Other Cross-IP Areas

According Dates of Filing on Sundays and Public Holidays

Currently, where an IP application is filed on a Sunday or public holiday, the earliest date of filing accorded will be the next following day that is not a Sunday or public holiday.

IPOS proposes that an IP application filed on a Sunday or public holiday will be accorded a date of filing of the same day insofar as the applicable requirements are met under the respective IP Acts and Rules. This would align Singapore’s practice with the practices of other major IP offices.

Extension of Time in Special Circumstances

The Registrar currently has the power to extend deadlines that have not yet expired if there are “circumstances beyond the control of a party concerned” or “other special circumstances”.

IPOS proposes to remove “other special circumstances” from this provision as the scope of “circumstances beyond the control of a party concerned” is sufficiently broad.

Concluding Words

The proposed amendments will effect significant changes to Singapore’s IP regime, particularly with regard to the application and objection processes. This includes amendments on key areas such as application timelines and scale of costs.

Stakeholders may wish to submit their feedback on the proposed changes to IPOS to refine the policies and shape the IP regime. Parties seeking assistance with their feedback may feel free to contact our Team set out on this page for consultation.

The full consultation paper is available here.