Guidance

China Intellectual Property newsletter (September 2026）

Updated 30 September 2026

This is an ad-hoc newsletter to inform UK stakeholders of recent developments in the Chinese IP environment. The content is collected from publicly available sources, where information is often available in Chinese only. Please feel free to forward this newsletter, and contact Leo.Zhuang@fcdo.gov.uk to be added to/removed from the distribution list. An ODT version is available on the Embassy’s IP webpage

1. Police and government

1.1 China appoints Chen Fuli as new CNIPA party secretary

On 10 September, China appointed Chen Fuli as the Party Secretary of the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA). He will likely succeed Shen Changyu who has led CNIPA for nearly thirteen years as the new Commissioner. Chen Fuli brings a notably different professional background from many of his predecessors. Trained in law, he holds a Bachelor of Laws in International Economic Law from the China University of Political Science and Law and a Master of Laws from the University of Amsterdam. He has also pursued doctoral studies in law at Peking University. Before joining CNIPA, Chen spent much of his professional life within China’s foreign trade and legislative institutions. He served in a series of senior positions at the Ministry of Commerce’s Department of Treaty and Law, including Director of the IP Division, Deputy Director-General and ultimately Director-General of the Department of Treaty and Law. As Director-General, he engaged extensively in bilateral and multilateral negotiations involving IP and international trade. A particularly noteworthy aspect of his career was his service as IP Attaché at the Chinese Embassy in Washington, D.C. between 2009 and 2014. Read more on Commissioner Chen’s background in Chinese

1.2 China sets out copyright priorities for the 2026 to 2030 period

On 7 September, China’s National Copyright Administration (NCAC) published its copyright plan for the 15th Five-Year Plan period. The plan proposes revisions to implementing regulations and rules covering collective copyright management, online dissemination, computer software, administrative penalties and voluntary registration. It also calls for research into copyright rules for generative AI, including arrangements for the lawful use of data in AI training. The plan places considerable emphasis on administrative enforcement. It proposes more consistent standards, closer coordination between departments and faster handling of infringement cases involving e-commerce platforms, exhibitions, copyright transactions and international trade. Targeted initiatives will address infringement and piracy affecting publishing, broadcasting, online audiovisual services, literature, games and music, educational materials, cinema releases, major sporting events and cultural and creative products. The plan also identifies online sales, cloud storage, streaming services and generative AI as areas requiring clearer copyright order and stronger compliance. Collaboration between administrative enforcement, criminal justice and sector regulators is expected to improve evidence sharing, case transfers and coordinated action. Read China’s 15th Five-Year Plan for Copyright in Chinese

1.3 China releases new policy to unlock the value of IP data resources

On 26 August, the CNIPA and the National Data Administration jointly issued a policy to accelerate the development and use of IP data resources. Recognising data generated through the administration of patents, trade marks, geographical indications, and other IP systems as an important category of public data, the policy calls for a comprehensive lifecycle management framework covering data collection, storage, processing, sharing, and disclosure. The policy envisages the development of national standards for IP data formats, governance, security, and utilisation. It also calls for the enhancement of the National Intellectual Property Big Data Centre, which is expected to serve as the central hub of China’s IP data ecosystem. AI is a key focus throughout the policy. Authorities encourage the development of industry-specific large language models and intelligent public service tools to support IP administration, analysis, and decision-making. The policy also promotes the use of patent, licensing, transfer, and financing datasets to improve IP commercialisation mechanisms and inform economic policymaking. In addition, the policy encourages the use of IP data to support financing, securitisation, insurance products, and other financial services linked to IP assets. Read the joint opinions on the development and utilisation of IP data in Chinese

2. Judicial updates

2.1 China releases landmark judicial guidance on AI litigation

On 7 September, the Supreme People’s Court (SPC) issued the Opinions on the Lawful Adjudication of Artificial Intelligence Disputes, China’s first comprehensive judicial guidance on AI litigation. The 24 provisions address civil liability, IP, procedural rules and judicial coordination, with particular focus on personality rights. The Court states that creating or publicly using a recognisable AI-generated image of a person without consent may infringe rights to their name, likeness or other personality interests, while using an individual’s voice for AI training and generating identifiable synthetic speech without permission may violate protected voice rights. On AI model training, the Court indicates that using publicly available personal information will generally not infringe personal information rights if processing remains reasonable and the individual has not objected, although consent may still be required where processing could significantly affect personal interests. In the IP sphere, courts assessing AI-related copyright disputes should consider factors such as the nature of the AI service, training data sources, the roles of different participants and safeguards in place. Developers may be required to disclose information on training datasets, development records and model operations, while users who knowingly generate content substantially similar to protected works may also face liability. Read full judicial opinions from the SPC in Chinese

2.2 SPC launches consultation on draft interpretation ahead of the new trade mark law implementation

On 14 September, the SPC opened a public consultation on draft Provisions on Several Issues Concerning the Application of the new Trade Mark Law. The draft interpretation on temporal effect establishes detailed rules governing which version of the Trade Mark Law should apply to disputes arising across different legislative periods. For civil trade mark disputes, legal facts occurring after the new law takes effect will generally be governed by the revised legislation, while cases arising from facts predating the reform will continue to be assessed under the law and judicial interpretations in force at the relevant time. For situations in which conduct began before, but continues after, the commencement of the new law, courts would generally apply the revised legislation unless otherwise provided. The draft also clarifies the applicable law for several categories of trade mark administrative proceedings. Challenges to decisions on trade mark refusals and refusals of registration would be governed by the law in force when the review decision was issued. By contrast, litigation involving invalidation proceedings would generally be governed by the law in force when the disputed mark was approved for registration. Separate provisions address revocation proceedings and administrative penalty cases, establishing a comprehensive framework for resolving transitional issues that may arise once the new legislation takes effect. Read the SPC draft judicial interpretations on the new Trade Mark Law application in Chinese

2.3 SPC proposes revisions to judicial rules for trade mark disputes

On 14 September, the Supreme People’s Court published draft revisions to the Provisions on Several Issues Concerning the Trial of Administrative Cases Involving Trade Mark Grant and Confirmation Rights. The draft clarifies that marks which mislead consumers about a product’s quality, composition or origin may be deemed deceptive, while attempts to register the names of prominent public figures could be refused for creating adverse social effects. It also emphasises that distinctiveness should be assessed from the perspective of the relevant Chinese public and on the mark as a whole, including for foreign-language marks. The proposals strengthen protection for well-known marks, confirm that names, pseudonyms, enterprise abbreviations and well-known fictional characters may qualify as prior rights, and clarify that genuine commercial use, rather than merely formal acts, is required to defend against non-use cancellation. Read the SPC draft trade mark judicial interpretations in Chinese

3. CASE HIGHLIGHT

3.1 SPC highlights representative unfair competition cases covering IP rights

On 9 September, the SPC released nine representative unfair competition cases covering sectors including consumer goods, AI, digital platforms, and new energy technologies. Several of the cases address traditional forms of IP-related unfair competition. One representative case concerned the unauthorised use of a well-known commercial sign in a corporate name. The Court held that, even where a company complies with enterprise registration requirements, the use of a business name that is likely to cause consumer confusion or exploit the goodwill associated with a well-known trade mark may constitute unfair competition. Another notable case involved trade secret infringement. The Court confirmed that, where a business obtains commercial opportunities through the misappropriation of another party’s technical secrets, the value of those opportunities may be taken into account when calculating damages. Significantly, because the infringement was found to be intentional and particularly serious, the Court awarded punitive damages equal to twice the defendant’s illicit gains, underscoring China’s increasingly robust approach to trade secret protection. Read more on the representative cases from SPC in Chinese

3.2 SPP releases example cases showcasing technical support in IP enforcement

On 2 September, China’s Supreme People’s Procuratorate (SPP) released five representative cases highlighting the growing integration of technical expertise into IP prosecutions and legal supervision. The cases span both criminal and civil IP matters and involve a broad range of technologies, including trade secrets, patents, software copyright, online copyright infringement, and digital evidence analysis. A recurring theme across the cases is the increasing reliance on specialised technical mechanisms to establish key facts. Prosecutors utilised a variety of tools, including technical investigators, forensic examinations, technical consultations, expert witnesses, and digital evidence review systems. These mechanisms were used to assess issues such as whether information qualified as a trade secret, whether technical information was publicly available, whether technological protection measures for copyrighted works had been circumvented, and whether particular online activities constituted the unlawful dissemination of copyrighted content. Read more on the typical cases from the SPP in Chinese

If you would like any further information on any of the above matters or to discuss Embassy support for your company in China, contact Leo Zhuang (Leo.Zhuang@fcdo.gov.uk).