Intellectual property rights for innovations in geo-urbanism: a comparative analysis of the experiences of China and Ukraine

Abstract

The limited availability of land resources in megacities is forcing us to look for alternatives, among which the comprehensive development of underground space (geo-urbanism) is becoming a key area of sustainable development. This includes the construction of underground transport systems, commercial facilities, storage facilities, and multifunctional structures. In the context of global challenges such as climate change and resource constraints, geo-urbanism allows for the optimization of land use, reduction of the ecological footprint, and increased resilience of cities, which is particularly relevant in the context of armed aggression. The purpose of this article is to conduct a comparative analysis of the features of patent protection for innovations in geo-urbanism in China and Ukraine. Methods. The study uses structural-functional, formal-legal, statistical, and systemic methods, as well as comparative legal analysis to examine the peculiarities of patent protection for innovations in the field of geo-urbanistics. Results. The theoretical foundations of geo-urbanistics as a three-dimensional approach to urbanization, the classification of innovations (tunneling methods, BIM modeling, materials, civil protection systems), and international patentability conditions were studied. An analysis of the regulatory framework was conducted, which showed China's leadership in this area, as reflected in the provisions of the Chinese Patent Law administered by the CNIPA, which ensured that in 2024 more than 1.8 million applications for inventions and 1.045 million patents issued, with an emphasis on utility models and accelerated examination for green technologies. Conclusions. The study is based on empirical data confirming the growth of innovation despite the war in Ukraine, with limited patent activity, focusing on utility models for protective structures. Similarities (participation in the PCT, territorial principle) and differences (scale, incentives, focus: commercial in China and defense in Ukraine) have been identified. Recommendations are made for accelerated examination of underground technologies, subsidies, and integration of IP into urban planning documentation, which should increase patent activity with a transition to environmental innovations for sustainable recovery.