On March 27, 2025, Beijing Municipal Intellectual Property Office issued “Beijing Guidelines on the Registration and Transaction of Data Intellectual Property Rights” (hereinafter referred to as the “Guidelines”). It marks a significant institutional step toward facilitating the compliant circulation of data assets. Although not legally binding, the Guidelines provide a regulatory framework and practical direction for data IP transactions, serving as a valuable reference point for enterprises and institutions participating in the digital economy. This article analyzes the highlights of the Guidelines and provides relevant recommendations, as well as raises queries as to the basis and coverage of these Guidelines.
I. Clarifying Data Ownership
Despite the national-level implementation of laws such as the Data Security Law and the Personal Information Protection Law, as well as local policies like the Beijing Digital Economy Promotion Ordinance, the actual marketability of data remains constrained by unclear ownership, complex compliance requirements, and ambiguous liability allocation.
The Guidelines were formulated to address precisely these challenges. They stipulate that only data IP registered with a designated institution and certified by an official registration certificate qualifies as a legitimate transaction object. This institutional design lays a foundational framework for determining legal entitlements, which, although not yet equivalent to patent or trademark registration, holds preliminary probative value in legal practice.
Moreover, the Guidelines emphasize that data must be legally compliant, clearly owned, dispute-free, licensable, and transferable. These conditions provide enterprises with a clear benchmark for internal data governance. As for pricing, the Guidelines adopt a market-driven approach, allowing parties to negotiate or refer to third-party valuations to determine fair and transparent transaction values.
II. Structuring Transactions - Diversified Paths and Contractual Certainty
A particularly commendable feature of the Guidelines is the operational flexibility they afford. Enterprises may opt for transactions via officially designated data exchanges or conduct direct peer-to-peer deals through negotiation, bidding, or auction. This dual-track mechanism accommodates organizations of various scales and operational models.
On the contractual side, the Guidelines propose comprehensive contractual elements, including the transaction method, object, pricing, settlement terms, delivery schedule, use restrictions, breach clauses, and compliance commitments. Although advisory in nature, these standards can significantly reduce contract disputes and enhance execution reliability.
Equally important are the security protocols set out in the Guidelines. Whether through institutional platforms or private arrangements, parties are encouraged to implement technical and administrative safeguards to ensure transaction safety, focusing on data authenticity, access control, and risk mitigation.
III. Regulatory Oversight and Dispute Resolution
The Guidelines extend beyond transaction logistics to address regulatory and dispute resolution mechanisms. Relevant authorities are empowered to guide and oversee transaction activities. Disputes, particularly those arising in platform-mediated transactions, may be resolved through negotiation, mediation, arbitration, or litigation, depending on the parties' preferences and case specifics.Of particular note is the recommendation to leverage institutional mediation services to reduce litigation costs and resolve conflicts efficiently—an approach well-suited for the fast-paced, high-frequency nature of digital asset transactions.
IV. Key Considerations and Legal Recommendations
While the Guidelines represent an institutional innovation, several critical challenges remain:
First, the legal concept of “data intellectual property” lacks formal statutory recognition and clear delineation from existing IP categories such as copyright or trade secrets.
Second, although registration offers initial proof of ownership, it lacks the enforcement power of statutory rights and requires supplementary evidence in practice.
Additionally, issues relating to cross-jurisdictional transactions and legal applicability may arise, particularly when parties are located outside Beijing. Legal conflicts, contract enforcement, and dispute jurisdiction should be anticipated and strategically addressed.
Given the above, we offer the following legal advice for enterprises:
1. Conduct comprehensive internal audits of data assets to determine sources, ownership status, and market readiness;2. Participate in data IP registration pilot programs to enhance legal defensibility and market visibility of data assets;3. Develop robust internal compliance systems for data transactions, including security protocols, contract review procedures, and dispute response plans;4. In high-value or complex transactions, engage legal counsel, technical experts, and third-party valuation agencies to ensure risk controllability and pricing rationality.Comments
The issuance of the Beijing Guidelines on Data IP Transactions marks a transition from policy concept to actionable framework. It not only strengthens Beijing’s strategic positioning in digital economy governance but also offers a replicable model for national reference. With the gradual maturity of supporting mechanisms, we can expect a more efficient closed-loop system for data entitlement, compliant circulation, and secure application.