MACAU SAR, CHINA Trends and Developments Contributed by: João Nuno Riquito, Bruno Almeida and Daniel de Senna Fernandes, Riquito Advogados
Riquito Advogados Avenida Comercial de Macau, 251A-301 AIA Tower, 11th floor, suite 1104
Macau SAR, China Tel: +853 2838 9918 Fax: +853 2838 9919 Email: jnr@riquito.com Web: www.riquito.com
Gaming Tech Litigation and Beyond: The Ripple Effects of Patent Nullity in Macau Introduction The legal framework governing intellectual prop- erty (IP) in the Macau Special Administrative Region (“Macau”) is primarily codified in the Industrial Prop- erty Legal Regime, approved by Decree-Law 97/99/M and initially gazetted on 13 December 1999 ( Regime Jurídico da Propriedade Industrial , or RJPI), with other legal provisions also applicable, such as the World Trade Organization’s Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) and the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property. This framework regulates the granting of industrial property rights over inventions, creations and distinctive marks, with the statutory goal of safe- guarding technological creativity, development and fair competition in Macau. While the RJPI grants the Economic and Technological Development Bureau of Macau ( Direcção dos Serviços de Economia e Desenvolvimento Industrial , or DSEDT) the authority to receive, examine and register patent applications, the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) has participated actively in the substantive examination of those filings since 2003, as per a formal co-operation agreement between CNIPA and DSEDT, which sets out a joint-working arrange- ment whereby CNIPA provides technical assistance to DSEDT, including the preparation of search reports and substantive opinions on patentability. In practice, CNIPA conducts the material examination of patent applications filed in Macau, applying the substantive standards of the RJPI (particularly the requirements of novelty, inventive step and industrial applicability) on behalf of DSEDT.
Despite being an agency under the State Admin- istration for Market Regulation of China, CNIPA’s involvement does not supersede Macau’s autono- mous legislative regime; instead, CNIPA’s technical input operates within the parameters established by the RJPI, by supplying DSEDT with expert reports that evaluate whether an invention meets the inven - tive‑step threshold, which are later incorporated into DSEDT’s decision‑making process. Ruling background and overview of a key patent nullity case In September 2025, the Macau Court of First Instance presented its ruling on the merits of a prolonged and high-stakes legal dispute concerning an alleged pat- ent infringement between two competitors in the highly regulated gaming technology sector. The con- clusion of this extensive litigation – which spanned a remarkable 13 years – may offer valuable insight into the judiciary’s approach to patent validity and enforce- ment within the jurisdiction’s core industry. In dispute since 2009, the plaintiffs claimed patent infringement and sought to enforce two specific Macau patents which, according to the plaintiffs’ briefs, would protect a method and system for playing baccarat and other games of chance in a casino. The plaintiffs asserted that these patents granted them an exclusive right to the production, marketing and sale over live dealer multi-game terminals in Macau and sought to prevent the defendants from marketing and operating products that allegedly implemented – hence infringed – the same technological solutions protected by such patents.
657 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook