On February 24, 2026, the State Administration for Market Regulation issued Order No. 126, officially promulgating the Regulations on the Protection of Trade Secrets (hereinafter referred to as the “Regulations”). As key supporting administrative rules for the Anti-Unfair Competition Law of the People’s Republic of China, the Regulations aim to maintain a market order of fair competition by strengthening the administrative protection of trade secrets.
The Regulations shall officially come into force on June 1, 2026, at which time the Several Regulations on Prohibiting Acts of Infringing Trade Secrets issued on November 23, 1995, shall be simultaneously repealed. This transition marks the comprehensive leap of China’s administrative protection system for trade secrets from the industrial era to the digital era after thirty years, providing business operators with more contemporary and certain compliance guidance.
This article will systematically organize and analyze the core contents of the Regulations, including the criteria for defining trade secrets, the logic for determining infringing acts, exemptions from infringement, the boundaries for exercising administrative powers, and the methods of assuming legal liability; and summarize the key changes between the old and new regulations, as well as the rights holders’ exercise and protection of trade secret rights.
I. Main Content of the Regulations (I) Refined Reconstruction of the Statutory Elements of Trade Secrets The Regulations perform a rigorous logical deconstruction of the definition of trade secrets, clarifying that they must simultaneously possess three elements: secrecy, value, and confidentiality measures. Regarding the scope of objects, the Regulations expand “technical information” to include algorithms, source code, and experimental data, and extend “business information” to include deep customer information, including transaction habits. Of particular note is that the determination of “value” adopts a position that emphasizes both “result-orientation” and “process-orientation”.” It not only protects actual value capable of bringing direct profits but also explicitly includes phased results formed during production and operation, and even “failed experimental data”,” within the scope of protection. This institutional arrangement has significant incentive significance for high-tech R&D enterprises, recognizing that the cost of trial and error in the R&D process also constitutes a competitive advantage for the enterprise, thereby addressing the insufficient protection of “negative information” in past practice.
Regarding the determination of confidentiality measures, the Regulations abandon the mechanical requirement of “total closure” and instead emphasize the “reasonable fitness” between the measures and the value and nature of the secret. In response to the normalcy of digital offices, the Regulations prospectively list technical confidentiality measures such as hierarchical authorization, data de-identification, and operation log tracking. This logical shift from traditional “physical isolation” to “digital compliance” fully balances business efficiency and information security, providing clear adjudicative guidance for courts and administrative organs to judge the “reasonableness” of confidentiality measures.
(II) All-Dimensional Regulation of Infringement Types and Expansion of Liability The Regulations construct a closed-loop regulatory system covering stages such as acquisition, disclosure, use, and licensing others to use. Targeting increasingly concealed digital infringements, the Regulations explicitly define acts such as electronic intrusion, unauthorized entry into digital office systems, and the acquisition of information by bypassing technical measures as unfair means. Furthermore, regarding the downloading of confidential data to personal email or cloud storage spaces beyond the scope of authorization, the Regulations also characterize such acts as illegal acquisition, precisely striking at “theft at the fingertips” implemented through the convenience of remote work.
Regarding the subjects of liability, the Regulations achieve a longitudinal expansion of the scope of liability by setting “instigation, inducement, and assistance” clauses. This means that even if the relevant subject has not directly accessed the trade secret, as long as they induce others to breach contracts or infringe through material rewards, job promises, etc., they must also bear corresponding administrative legal liability. At the same time, for third parties who still acquire the secret while “knowing or having reason to know” that others acted illegally, the Regulations establish a logic of presumed infringement and detail the standards for comprehensive consideration of factors such as the degree of confidentiality of business information and the reasonableness of transaction prices in Article 14, effectively curbing the secondary dissemination of the information involved.
(III) Infringement Exemptions under the Balance of Interests Beyond constructing a tight protection web, the Regulations prudently delineate the boundaries for infringement exemptions, namely circumstances that “generally do not constitute acts of infringing trade secrets”.” The establishment of this “safe harbor” rule fully reflects the delicate balance the law strikes between protecting private rights and promoting technological progress, safeguarding public interests, and protecting laborers’ freedom of career choice.
First, independent discovery and autonomous research and development, as sources of innovation, are explicitly excluded from the scope of infringement, which guarantees the right of business operators to conduct parallel development without utilizing the secrets of others. Second, targeting products in public circulation on the market, the Regulations recognize the legality of “reverse engineering”,” meaning that obtaining technical information through disassembly, mapping, and analysis of products obtained from public channels does not constitute an infringement against the original right holder.
Furthermore, in an era of increasingly frequent talent mobility, the Regulations specifically clarify the legality of former employees utilizing the general knowledge, skills, and industry experience accumulated during their work to carry out work after resignation. This provision effectively prevents trade secret protection from being abused as a tool to restrict the reasonable flow of talent. In addition, based on higher value considerations of maintaining the rule of law and social order, the act of disclosing trade secrets to state organs in accordance with the law due to the need to expose illegal crimes or maintain national security or public interests is likewise protected by legal exemption.
(IV) Efficiency Improvement of Administrative Enforcement Procedures and Allocation of the Burden of Proof The Regulations balance enforcement intensity and due process in their procedural design. Regarding the allocation of jurisdiction, considering the professional complexity of technical secret cases, they are, in principle, placed under the jurisdiction of departments at or above the level of a city divided into districts, which helps to unify enforcement standards and improve the quality of case handling. Regarding investigative means, market regulation departments are empowered with powerful measures such as entering business premises for inspection, inquiring into bank accounts, and sealing or seizing property.
To resolve the “difficulty of proof” for right holders, the Regulations introduce a mechanism for the shift of the burden of proof in administrative enforcement, similar to that in civil litigation. That is, when a right holder can provide preliminary evidence that the confidential information possesses secrecy and has been infringed, and can prove that the infringer possesses the conditions for acquisition and that the information is substantially identical, the burden of proof shall shift, and the alleged infringer shall prove the legal source of their information. This mechanism significantly lowers the threshold for right holders to protect their rights. Meanwhile, the Regulations also set strict confidentiality obligations, requiring enforcement personnel to bear confidentiality responsibilities in accordance with the law for secrets learned during investigations to prevent the risk of “secondary leakage”.”
(V) Strictness of Legal Liability and Diversification of RemediesRegarding administrative sanctions, the Regulations maintain a rigorous connection with the Anti-Unfair Competition Law. In addition to the confiscation of illegal gains, general infringing acts may be subject to a maximum fine of one million yuan, while for serious circumstances such as causing significant losses, endangering national interests, or being a “recidivist”,” the limit for fines is increased to five million yuan.
More importantly, the Regulations enrich the specific connotations of ordering the cessation of illegal acts. Administrative organs can not only order the infringer to stop using the secret but also mandatorily require the return or destruction of carriers, the destruction of infringing products or intermediates containing the secret, until such information no longer constitutes a trade secret. Such comprehensive remedial measures ensure that administrative penalties are not only a punishment for illegal acts but also a deep restoration of the damaged market order.
II. Comparison Between Former and New Regulations Through an in-depth comparison between the former regulations and the new regulations, a significant transformation in the logic of trade secret protection in China can be clearly observed, namely the transition from “management norms” to “comprehensive protection”, specifically including the following aspects:
(I) Extension of the Connotation of Trade Secrets The former regulations limited trade secrets to information possessing “practicality” and capable of bringing “economic benefits”. The new regulations optimize this into the more forward-looking “commercial value”, which is no longer confined to current practicality but covers potential interests such as cost reduction, shortening of research and development time, and enhancement of commercial reputation. Regarding the definition of customer information, the former regulations only mentioned “customer lists”, whereas Article 5 of the new regulations expands this into in-depth profiles encompassing transaction habits, content, and intentions, which better aligns with the core competitiveness of enterprises under the background of modern precision marketing.
(II) Comprehensive Supplementation of Infringement Methods in the Digital Age The former regulations primarily targeted traditional acts of physical theft, inducement, and breach of agreement. In response to the normalcy of digital office environments, the new regulations add a substantial number of “digital fingerprint” type regulations. For instance, acts such as unauthorized entry into digital office systems, utilizing vulnerabilities to attack and obtain information, and transmitting confidential data to uncontrolled electronic mailboxes or cloud drives are explicitly classified as improper means. This change reflects the high level of concern by administrative regulators regarding the control of information flow within modern enterprises.
(III) Restructuring and Strengthening of the Allocation of Administrative Powers Transitioning from the former Administrations for Industry and Commerce to the current Market Supervision and Administration Departments, the new regulations strengthen administrative powers over trade secrets, with a focus on:1. Extension from “ex-post investigation and punishment” to “ex-ante guidance”: The former regulations were limited to the passive handling of infringing acts. Article 4 of the new regulations grants departments new powers to actively conduct publicity and interpretation, organize training, and guide business operators in establishing and improving protection systems, thereby strengthening the guiding role of administrative organs at the prevention end.2. Substantive expansion of investigative and evidence-collection powers: While retaining traditional powers of inquiry and inspection, the new regulations add highly deterrent and forceful measures. Upon approval by the principal person in charge at or above the level of a districted city, enforcement departments now have the power to inquire into the bank accounts of business operators suspected of infringement and to implement the sealing and seizure of property involved in the case. The intervention of such financial investigation powers thoroughly alters the previous situation under the former regulations where investigative measures were scarce.3. Specialized division of jurisdictional levels: Unlike the vague jurisdiction at or above the county level in the former regulations, the new regulations establish a specialized jurisdictional system, clarifying that technical secret cases shall, in principle, be handled by departments at or above the level of a districted city, ensuring professionalism and consistency in the handling of complex cases.
(IV) Increased Intensity of Penalty Regulations The enhancement of legal deterrence is the most direct manifestation of this regulatory update. The former regulations limited fines for infringing acts to between RMB 10,000 and RMB 200,000. In coordination with the amendment of the parent law, the new regulations significantly increase the base fine to between RMB 100,000 and RMB 1,000,000; for “serious circumstances” such as causing significant losses or endangering public interests, the upper limit of the fine has leaped to RMB 5,000,000. This change in magnitude completely reverses the past imbalance of “low cost of infringement and meager returns on rights protection”.
(V) Substantial Deepening of Remedies for Rights Holders The remedies under the former regulations were relatively singular, primarily focusing on ordering the return of materials or the destruction of products. Article 25 of the new regulations provides a more thorough path for relief, including ordering the elimination of the obtained trade secrets and the destruction of intermediate products, and clarifies that the duration for ceasing illegal acts should, in principle, continue until such information no longer constitutes a secret. This determination of a dynamic temporal dimension provides rights holders with longer-term protection of their market lead.
III. Paths for Rights Holders to Exercise and Protect Trade Secret Rights Currently, trade secret rights holders possess a broad legal basis regarding trade secrets:1. First, rights holders may initiate civil litigation in people’s courts or file reports with administrative authorities in accordance with the Anti-Unfair Competition Law;2. Second, they may claim compensation for infringement of intellectual property rights under the Civil Code, or pursue liability for breach of contract against employees for violating confidentiality agreements and non-compete restrictions under the Labor Contract Law;3. Furthermore, where an infringing act causes significant losses, rights holders may request that criminal suspects be held criminally liable in accordance with the Criminal Law;4. In addition, Regulations in the Company Law regarding the duty of loyalty of senior management provide strong support for rights holders to prevent insider infringement.
Under the framework of the New Regulations, filing a report with the market supervision and administration department is the most efficient path for rights protection. The New Regulations guide and empower rights holders to protect their legitimate rights and interests comprehensively through “compliance management + professional skill assistance + administrative remedies”, which specifically include: (i) Initiation of Administrative Remedy Procedures and the Burden of ProofWhere a rights holder believes that its rights and interests have been harmed, filing a report with the market supervision and administration department at or above the county level is its core path for rights protection. The evidentiary requirements for rights holders under the New Regulations follow the logic of “preliminary evidence + specific clues”. The rights holder must prove that the information involved meets the constituent elements of secrecy, value, and the adoption of reasonable confidentiality measures; meanwhile, it shall provide specific clues indicating that the alleged infringer had access channels, employed improper means, or has actually obtained and disclosed the secret. This setting not only grants legitimacy to the intervention and investigation by administrative organs but also provides corresponding guidance and requirements for the daily preservation of evidence by rights holders.
(ii) In-depth Introduction of Professional Auxiliary ToolsIn view of the highly professional and technical nature of trade secret cases, Article 22 of the New Regulations empowers rights holders to introduce external professional forces. Rights holders may entrust appraisal institutions with legal qualifications to conduct appraisals on core points of contention, such as whether the information is known to the public and whether the infringing information is substantially identical to the protected information; they may also entrust persons with specialized knowledge to issue professional opinions. The institutionalization of such professional auxiliary mechanisms greatly enhances the scientific nature and the admissibility rate of evidence in complex technical cases.
(iii) Substantive Requests for Remedies to Cease InfringementIn administrative procedures, rights holders may claim diversified remedies in accordance with the law to intercept losses. According to Article 25, administrative organs may order the infringer to cease using the secrets, return or destroy carriers, and eliminate the obtained trade secrets. Crucially, the efficacy of the order to cease illegal acts shall, in principle, continue until the information no longer constitutes a secret. This design of a dynamic protection period ensures that administrative protection can truly cover the entire lifecycle of a trade secret.
(iv) Internal Compliance as the Foundation for Exercising RightsThe exercise of rights is highly dependent on the integrity of the prior confidentiality system. Article 9 of the New Regulations lists in detail the “reasonable confidentiality measures” recognized by law, covering measures ranging from signing agreements and formulating internal rules and regulations to technical means such as authorization hierarchy and data masking adopted for remote work. By establishing a deep internal control system combined with innovative protection forms such as certification and evidence storage, rights holders can not only effectively prevent infringement but also rapidly construct a complete chain of evidence at the moment of rights protection.
Conclusion The release and implementation of the 2026 Regulations on the Protection of Trade Secrets mark a new stage of legalization, specialization, and modernization of China’s administrative protection of trade secrets. By refining codes of conduct, balancing diverse interests, and strengthening enforcement efficiency, it delineates a clear compliance bottom line for business operators and provides more powerful protection of rights for right holders. Amidst the deepening digital transformation, enterprise protection of trade secrets should shift from simple contractual constraints to the deep integration of systems, technology, and management, thereby constructing a fair and orderly environment for market competition.
The Regulations shall officially come into force on June 1, 2026, at which time the Several Regulations on Prohibiting Acts of Infringing Trade Secrets issued on November 23, 1995, shall be simultaneously repealed. This transition marks the comprehensive leap of China’s administrative protection system for trade secrets from the industrial era to the digital era after thirty years, providing business operators with more contemporary and certain compliance guidance.
This article will systematically organize and analyze the core contents of the Regulations, including the criteria for defining trade secrets, the logic for determining infringing acts, exemptions from infringement, the boundaries for exercising administrative powers, and the methods of assuming legal liability; and summarize the key changes between the old and new regulations, as well as the rights holders’ exercise and protection of trade secret rights.
I. Main Content of the Regulations (I) Refined Reconstruction of the Statutory Elements of Trade Secrets The Regulations perform a rigorous logical deconstruction of the definition of trade secrets, clarifying that they must simultaneously possess three elements: secrecy, value, and confidentiality measures. Regarding the scope of objects, the Regulations expand “technical information” to include algorithms, source code, and experimental data, and extend “business information” to include deep customer information, including transaction habits. Of particular note is that the determination of “value” adopts a position that emphasizes both “result-orientation” and “process-orientation”.” It not only protects actual value capable of bringing direct profits but also explicitly includes phased results formed during production and operation, and even “failed experimental data”,” within the scope of protection. This institutional arrangement has significant incentive significance for high-tech R&D enterprises, recognizing that the cost of trial and error in the R&D process also constitutes a competitive advantage for the enterprise, thereby addressing the insufficient protection of “negative information” in past practice.
Regarding the determination of confidentiality measures, the Regulations abandon the mechanical requirement of “total closure” and instead emphasize the “reasonable fitness” between the measures and the value and nature of the secret. In response to the normalcy of digital offices, the Regulations prospectively list technical confidentiality measures such as hierarchical authorization, data de-identification, and operation log tracking. This logical shift from traditional “physical isolation” to “digital compliance” fully balances business efficiency and information security, providing clear adjudicative guidance for courts and administrative organs to judge the “reasonableness” of confidentiality measures.
(II) All-Dimensional Regulation of Infringement Types and Expansion of Liability The Regulations construct a closed-loop regulatory system covering stages such as acquisition, disclosure, use, and licensing others to use. Targeting increasingly concealed digital infringements, the Regulations explicitly define acts such as electronic intrusion, unauthorized entry into digital office systems, and the acquisition of information by bypassing technical measures as unfair means. Furthermore, regarding the downloading of confidential data to personal email or cloud storage spaces beyond the scope of authorization, the Regulations also characterize such acts as illegal acquisition, precisely striking at “theft at the fingertips” implemented through the convenience of remote work.
Regarding the subjects of liability, the Regulations achieve a longitudinal expansion of the scope of liability by setting “instigation, inducement, and assistance” clauses. This means that even if the relevant subject has not directly accessed the trade secret, as long as they induce others to breach contracts or infringe through material rewards, job promises, etc., they must also bear corresponding administrative legal liability. At the same time, for third parties who still acquire the secret while “knowing or having reason to know” that others acted illegally, the Regulations establish a logic of presumed infringement and detail the standards for comprehensive consideration of factors such as the degree of confidentiality of business information and the reasonableness of transaction prices in Article 14, effectively curbing the secondary dissemination of the information involved.
(III) Infringement Exemptions under the Balance of Interests Beyond constructing a tight protection web, the Regulations prudently delineate the boundaries for infringement exemptions, namely circumstances that “generally do not constitute acts of infringing trade secrets”.” The establishment of this “safe harbor” rule fully reflects the delicate balance the law strikes between protecting private rights and promoting technological progress, safeguarding public interests, and protecting laborers’ freedom of career choice.
First, independent discovery and autonomous research and development, as sources of innovation, are explicitly excluded from the scope of infringement, which guarantees the right of business operators to conduct parallel development without utilizing the secrets of others. Second, targeting products in public circulation on the market, the Regulations recognize the legality of “reverse engineering”,” meaning that obtaining technical information through disassembly, mapping, and analysis of products obtained from public channels does not constitute an infringement against the original right holder.
Furthermore, in an era of increasingly frequent talent mobility, the Regulations specifically clarify the legality of former employees utilizing the general knowledge, skills, and industry experience accumulated during their work to carry out work after resignation. This provision effectively prevents trade secret protection from being abused as a tool to restrict the reasonable flow of talent. In addition, based on higher value considerations of maintaining the rule of law and social order, the act of disclosing trade secrets to state organs in accordance with the law due to the need to expose illegal crimes or maintain national security or public interests is likewise protected by legal exemption.
(IV) Efficiency Improvement of Administrative Enforcement Procedures and Allocation of the Burden of Proof The Regulations balance enforcement intensity and due process in their procedural design. Regarding the allocation of jurisdiction, considering the professional complexity of technical secret cases, they are, in principle, placed under the jurisdiction of departments at or above the level of a city divided into districts, which helps to unify enforcement standards and improve the quality of case handling. Regarding investigative means, market regulation departments are empowered with powerful measures such as entering business premises for inspection, inquiring into bank accounts, and sealing or seizing property.
To resolve the “difficulty of proof” for right holders, the Regulations introduce a mechanism for the shift of the burden of proof in administrative enforcement, similar to that in civil litigation. That is, when a right holder can provide preliminary evidence that the confidential information possesses secrecy and has been infringed, and can prove that the infringer possesses the conditions for acquisition and that the information is substantially identical, the burden of proof shall shift, and the alleged infringer shall prove the legal source of their information. This mechanism significantly lowers the threshold for right holders to protect their rights. Meanwhile, the Regulations also set strict confidentiality obligations, requiring enforcement personnel to bear confidentiality responsibilities in accordance with the law for secrets learned during investigations to prevent the risk of “secondary leakage”.”
(V) Strictness of Legal Liability and Diversification of RemediesRegarding administrative sanctions, the Regulations maintain a rigorous connection with the Anti-Unfair Competition Law. In addition to the confiscation of illegal gains, general infringing acts may be subject to a maximum fine of one million yuan, while for serious circumstances such as causing significant losses, endangering national interests, or being a “recidivist”,” the limit for fines is increased to five million yuan.
More importantly, the Regulations enrich the specific connotations of ordering the cessation of illegal acts. Administrative organs can not only order the infringer to stop using the secret but also mandatorily require the return or destruction of carriers, the destruction of infringing products or intermediates containing the secret, until such information no longer constitutes a trade secret. Such comprehensive remedial measures ensure that administrative penalties are not only a punishment for illegal acts but also a deep restoration of the damaged market order.
II. Comparison Between Former and New Regulations Through an in-depth comparison between the former regulations and the new regulations, a significant transformation in the logic of trade secret protection in China can be clearly observed, namely the transition from “management norms” to “comprehensive protection”, specifically including the following aspects:
(I) Extension of the Connotation of Trade Secrets The former regulations limited trade secrets to information possessing “practicality” and capable of bringing “economic benefits”. The new regulations optimize this into the more forward-looking “commercial value”, which is no longer confined to current practicality but covers potential interests such as cost reduction, shortening of research and development time, and enhancement of commercial reputation. Regarding the definition of customer information, the former regulations only mentioned “customer lists”, whereas Article 5 of the new regulations expands this into in-depth profiles encompassing transaction habits, content, and intentions, which better aligns with the core competitiveness of enterprises under the background of modern precision marketing.
(II) Comprehensive Supplementation of Infringement Methods in the Digital Age The former regulations primarily targeted traditional acts of physical theft, inducement, and breach of agreement. In response to the normalcy of digital office environments, the new regulations add a substantial number of “digital fingerprint” type regulations. For instance, acts such as unauthorized entry into digital office systems, utilizing vulnerabilities to attack and obtain information, and transmitting confidential data to uncontrolled electronic mailboxes or cloud drives are explicitly classified as improper means. This change reflects the high level of concern by administrative regulators regarding the control of information flow within modern enterprises.
(III) Restructuring and Strengthening of the Allocation of Administrative Powers Transitioning from the former Administrations for Industry and Commerce to the current Market Supervision and Administration Departments, the new regulations strengthen administrative powers over trade secrets, with a focus on:1. Extension from “ex-post investigation and punishment” to “ex-ante guidance”: The former regulations were limited to the passive handling of infringing acts. Article 4 of the new regulations grants departments new powers to actively conduct publicity and interpretation, organize training, and guide business operators in establishing and improving protection systems, thereby strengthening the guiding role of administrative organs at the prevention end.2. Substantive expansion of investigative and evidence-collection powers: While retaining traditional powers of inquiry and inspection, the new regulations add highly deterrent and forceful measures. Upon approval by the principal person in charge at or above the level of a districted city, enforcement departments now have the power to inquire into the bank accounts of business operators suspected of infringement and to implement the sealing and seizure of property involved in the case. The intervention of such financial investigation powers thoroughly alters the previous situation under the former regulations where investigative measures were scarce.3. Specialized division of jurisdictional levels: Unlike the vague jurisdiction at or above the county level in the former regulations, the new regulations establish a specialized jurisdictional system, clarifying that technical secret cases shall, in principle, be handled by departments at or above the level of a districted city, ensuring professionalism and consistency in the handling of complex cases.
(IV) Increased Intensity of Penalty Regulations The enhancement of legal deterrence is the most direct manifestation of this regulatory update. The former regulations limited fines for infringing acts to between RMB 10,000 and RMB 200,000. In coordination with the amendment of the parent law, the new regulations significantly increase the base fine to between RMB 100,000 and RMB 1,000,000; for “serious circumstances” such as causing significant losses or endangering public interests, the upper limit of the fine has leaped to RMB 5,000,000. This change in magnitude completely reverses the past imbalance of “low cost of infringement and meager returns on rights protection”.
(V) Substantial Deepening of Remedies for Rights Holders The remedies under the former regulations were relatively singular, primarily focusing on ordering the return of materials or the destruction of products. Article 25 of the new regulations provides a more thorough path for relief, including ordering the elimination of the obtained trade secrets and the destruction of intermediate products, and clarifies that the duration for ceasing illegal acts should, in principle, continue until such information no longer constitutes a secret. This determination of a dynamic temporal dimension provides rights holders with longer-term protection of their market lead.
III. Paths for Rights Holders to Exercise and Protect Trade Secret Rights Currently, trade secret rights holders possess a broad legal basis regarding trade secrets:1. First, rights holders may initiate civil litigation in people’s courts or file reports with administrative authorities in accordance with the Anti-Unfair Competition Law;2. Second, they may claim compensation for infringement of intellectual property rights under the Civil Code, or pursue liability for breach of contract against employees for violating confidentiality agreements and non-compete restrictions under the Labor Contract Law;3. Furthermore, where an infringing act causes significant losses, rights holders may request that criminal suspects be held criminally liable in accordance with the Criminal Law;4. In addition, Regulations in the Company Law regarding the duty of loyalty of senior management provide strong support for rights holders to prevent insider infringement.
Under the framework of the New Regulations, filing a report with the market supervision and administration department is the most efficient path for rights protection. The New Regulations guide and empower rights holders to protect their legitimate rights and interests comprehensively through “compliance management + professional skill assistance + administrative remedies”, which specifically include: (i) Initiation of Administrative Remedy Procedures and the Burden of ProofWhere a rights holder believes that its rights and interests have been harmed, filing a report with the market supervision and administration department at or above the county level is its core path for rights protection. The evidentiary requirements for rights holders under the New Regulations follow the logic of “preliminary evidence + specific clues”. The rights holder must prove that the information involved meets the constituent elements of secrecy, value, and the adoption of reasonable confidentiality measures; meanwhile, it shall provide specific clues indicating that the alleged infringer had access channels, employed improper means, or has actually obtained and disclosed the secret. This setting not only grants legitimacy to the intervention and investigation by administrative organs but also provides corresponding guidance and requirements for the daily preservation of evidence by rights holders.
(ii) In-depth Introduction of Professional Auxiliary ToolsIn view of the highly professional and technical nature of trade secret cases, Article 22 of the New Regulations empowers rights holders to introduce external professional forces. Rights holders may entrust appraisal institutions with legal qualifications to conduct appraisals on core points of contention, such as whether the information is known to the public and whether the infringing information is substantially identical to the protected information; they may also entrust persons with specialized knowledge to issue professional opinions. The institutionalization of such professional auxiliary mechanisms greatly enhances the scientific nature and the admissibility rate of evidence in complex technical cases.
(iii) Substantive Requests for Remedies to Cease InfringementIn administrative procedures, rights holders may claim diversified remedies in accordance with the law to intercept losses. According to Article 25, administrative organs may order the infringer to cease using the secrets, return or destroy carriers, and eliminate the obtained trade secrets. Crucially, the efficacy of the order to cease illegal acts shall, in principle, continue until the information no longer constitutes a secret. This design of a dynamic protection period ensures that administrative protection can truly cover the entire lifecycle of a trade secret.
(iv) Internal Compliance as the Foundation for Exercising RightsThe exercise of rights is highly dependent on the integrity of the prior confidentiality system. Article 9 of the New Regulations lists in detail the “reasonable confidentiality measures” recognized by law, covering measures ranging from signing agreements and formulating internal rules and regulations to technical means such as authorization hierarchy and data masking adopted for remote work. By establishing a deep internal control system combined with innovative protection forms such as certification and evidence storage, rights holders can not only effectively prevent infringement but also rapidly construct a complete chain of evidence at the moment of rights protection.
Conclusion The release and implementation of the 2026 Regulations on the Protection of Trade Secrets mark a new stage of legalization, specialization, and modernization of China’s administrative protection of trade secrets. By refining codes of conduct, balancing diverse interests, and strengthening enforcement efficiency, it delineates a clear compliance bottom line for business operators and provides more powerful protection of rights for right holders. Amidst the deepening digital transformation, enterprise protection of trade secrets should shift from simple contractual constraints to the deep integration of systems, technology, and management, thereby constructing a fair and orderly environment for market competition.