The Provisions on the Protection of Trade Secrets, issued by the State Administration for Market Regulation under Order No. 126, came into force on 1 June 2026 and replace rules first introduced in 1995. The overhaul gives regulators clearer authority to handle disputes involving digital assets that now sit at the centre of corporate value, from AI model architecture and training datasets to platform recommendation systems, software code and commercially valuable operational data.
The change marks a significant shift in China’s treatment of intangible technology assets. Earlier rules were drafted before cloud computing, AI systems and large-scale data operations became central to business competition. The new framework defines trade secrets as technical or business information that is not publicly known, has commercial value and has been subject to confidentiality measures by the rights holder. Technical information now expressly covers data, algorithms, computer programs and code, while business information can include management, sales, finance, planning, customer and operational data.
The timing gives the regulation wider strategic weight. China and the United States are locked in a prolonged technology rivalry involving semiconductor controls, restrictions on advanced computing hardware, limits on investment in sensitive sectors and scrutiny of cross-border technology transfers. Washington has tightened export controls on high-end chips and chipmaking equipment, while Beijing has expanded its own legal toolkit to protect critical technology, secure data flows and prevent overseas transfer of capabilities it regards as strategically important.
The new rules do not create a separate trade secret law, but provide more detailed administrative guidance under China’s Anti-Unfair Competition Law. They clarify how regulators should assess whether information is secret, whether it has commercial value, what counts as reasonable confidentiality measures and how infringement should be investigated. For companies, the central message is that protection will depend not only on the value of the information, but also on whether internal controls, access limits, confidentiality agreements, digital safeguards and evidence trails are in place.
The provisions also recognise that unsuccessful research can have commercial value. Stage-by-stage technical results, failed experimental data and development paths that save time or cost in future research may qualify for protection if they meet the legal conditions. That is especially relevant for AI labs, pharmaceutical developers, electric vehicle makers, chip design firms and advanced manufacturing groups, where failed trials can reveal important technical boundaries and prevent competitors from repeating expensive mistakes.
Regulators have been given practical enforcement tools, including powers to inspect business premises, question individuals, copy documents, examine electronic records and take action against materials linked to suspected infringement. Penalties can include orders to stop unlawful conduct, confiscation of illegal gains and fines that may reach CNY5 million in serious cases. The framework also covers improper acquisition, disclosure, use or permission to use trade secrets obtained through theft, bribery, fraud, coercion, electronic intrusion or breach of confidentiality obligations.
For multinational companies operating in China, the new rules create a mixed picture. Stronger protection could help firms defend proprietary data, software systems and industrial processes in a market where trade secret disputes have often been difficult to pursue. At the same time, wider protection for data and algorithms may increase compliance complexity, particularly in joint ventures, outsourced research, cloud services, employee mobility, cross-border collaboration and licensing arrangements.
Technology companies are likely to face tougher expectations over documentation. Firms seeking protection will need to show that the information was not easily accessible, carried economic value and was actively protected. Generic claims that an algorithm or dataset is confidential may not be enough. Companies will be expected to classify sensitive assets, restrict access by role, track downloads and transfers, maintain logs, use encryption or watermarking where appropriate, and ensure that employment and partnership contracts define confidentiality obligations with precision.
The rules also sit alongside China’s broader data and security regime, including laws on data security, personal information protection, cybersecurity and export control. That overlap could make enforcement more powerful but also more complicated. A dataset may be a trade secret, a regulated data asset and a cross-border transfer concern at the same time. Businesses handling AI training material, user behaviour data or industrial performance data will need to assess those obligations together rather than treating trade secret protection as a standalone issue.
Follow Arabian Post
Select Arabian Post as your preferred source on Google and MSN News for trusted business news and Arab politics and updates.
