On 24 February 2026, the State Administration for Market Regulation ("SAMR") officially released the Provisions on the Protection of Trade Secrets ("PPTS"). The new regulation will come into effect on 1 June 2026.
1. Background
In 1995, the former State Administration for Industry and Commerce issued the Provisions on Prohibiting Acts of Infringing Trade Secrets. The provisions were slightly revised in 1998 and remained in force until now.
As the SAMR recognized that these provisions could no longer meet the needs of trade secret protection in the digital economy, it first issued a draft PPTS for public comment in 2020. The revision was then suspended to align with the 2025 amendments to the PRC Anti-Unfair Competition Law ("AUCL"). In 2025, the SAMR solicited public comments on the PPTS again. On 24 February 2026, the SAMR ultimately released the PPTS officially.
Based on the AUCL and the Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Civil Cases of Trade Secret Infringement ("Judicial Interpretation on Trade Secrets", effective 2020), the PPTS systematically elaborates on infringing acts, legal liabilities and other key matters. These revisions strengthen the application of the PPTS and provide enterprises with practical guidance for trade secret protection.
2. Key Revisions
a) Elevation of jurisdiction and extraterritorial jurisdiction
Currently, acts of trade secret infringement are handled by departments at the county level or above of the Market Supervision of Administration ("MSA"). However, in practice, trade secret cases often involve the determination of complex technical information. It imposes high demands on the professional competence and practical experience of law enforcement officers. Therefore, Article 3 of the PPTS stipulates that such cases shall generally fall under the jurisdiction of departments at the city level with districts or above of the MSA. Only with the approval of the SAMR, the county level departments could handle the related cases.
Furthermore, Article 29 of the PPTS explicitly establishes the extraterritorial effect of the PPTS. Trade secret infringements committed outside the PRC that disrupt the Chinese market or harm Chinese businesses shall also be governed by the AUCL and relevant regulations.
b) Expansion of trade secret protection scope
Article 10 of the AUCL defines trade secrets as commercial information that is not known to the public, has commercial value and is subject to confidentiality measures taken by the rights holder. For consistency with the superior law, the PPTS adopts this definition. Compared to the previous definition, the PPTS replaces the element "bringing economic benefits" with "having commercial value". This shift indicates that commercial value is not limited to direct economic gains. Any competitive advantage, such as cost reduction or shortened development cycles, shall constitute "commercial value". Therefore, Article 7 of the PPTS explicitly includes interim results, failed experimental data and technical proposals within the scope of commercially valuable information. This article could ensure effective protection for enterprises' innovation outcomes throughout their entire lifecycle.
With reference to the Judicial Interpretation on Trade Secrets, Article 5 of the PPTS further clarifies the definitions of commercial information, which consists of technical information and business information. Technical information includes information related to technology, such as structures, raw materials, formulas, materials, samples, phototypes, processes, methods, data, algorithms, computer programs, etc. Notably, the PPTS also explicitly lists "codes" as technical information. This addresses the protection needs of software and algorithm related trade secrets in the digital economy. Business information includes information related to business activities, such as ideas, management, sales, finance, plans, samples, customer information, data, etc.
c) Refinement of confidentiality measures
With reference to the Judicial Interpretation on Trade Secrets, Article 9 of the PPTS lists seven types of reasonable confidentiality measures. These include:
- executing non-disclosure agreements;
- imposing confidentiality obligations on relevant personnel;
- restricting access to confidential areas;
- implementing divided management for trade secrets and their carriers;
- managing related computer and network equipment; and
- overseeing departing employees.
Notably, the PPTS also innovatively introduces technical confidentiality measures tailored for remote work and cross-border collaboration scenarios. These include tiered access controls, data desensitization, maintenance of operation logs, etc. This provision offers clear guidance for enterprises to establish and improve their full-process confidentiality system.
d) Refinement of types of trade secret infringement
Regarding acts of trade secret infringement, the PPTS lists four types of trade secret infringement from Article 10 to Article 13 grounded in the corresponding articles in the AUCL:
(1) Acquiring trade secrets by improper means
Based on the AUCL, Article 10 of the PPTS not only lists improper means such as theft, bribery, fraud, and coercion but also, for the first time in an administrative regulation, includes electronic intrusion as an independent form of improper means. The scenarios of "electronic intrusion" include unauthorized access to a right holder’s digital office systems, obtaining trade secrets through technical means and unauthorized downloading, or transmission of trade secrets to unauthorized network storage spaces or electronic devices.
(2) Disclosing, using, or permitting others to use trade secrets acquired by improper means
Unlike the AUCL, Article 11 of the PPTS provides explicit definitions for "disclosure" and "use". "Disclosure" means leaking trade secrets to third parties or making them public. "Use" means directly applying trade secrets, modifying them for application, or improving business operations based on them.
(3) Disclosing, using, or permitting others to use trade secrets acquired in violation of confidentiality obligations
Unlike the AUCL, Article 12 of the PPTS explicitly lists the sources of confidentiality obligations. These include:
- explicit contractual agreements;
- implied obligations arising from business customs and the principle of good faith;
- direct confidentiality requirements imposed on relevant parties who acquire trade secrets through commercial activities; and
- unilateral confidentiality requirements imposed by the rights holder on employees and business partners through internal regulations or reasonable protective measures.
(4) Instigating, inducing, or assisting others in infringing trade secrets
Compared with the AUCL, Article 13 of the PPTS further specifies three scenarios, i.e. direct incitement or instruction, inducement by benefit, and providing facilities for infringement. This provision aims to regulate the improper practice in talent recruitment where employers explicitly or implicitly require job applicants to bring trade secrets from their former employers as a condition of employment.
e) Refinement of the criteria for determining third-party infringement
With reference to corresponding third-party infringement provisions in the AUCL, Article 14 of the PPTS stipulates that a third party who acquires, discloses, or uses a trade secret while knowing or having reason to know that it was obtained through infringing activities shall be deemed to have infringed the trade secret. Furthermore, the PPTS specifies the factors to be considered when determining "knowing or having reason to know". These factors include the confidentiality level of business information, the legitimacy of the acquisition channels, the transaction price, the relationship between the third party and the rights holder and industry customs. The clear listed factors could enhance MSA's practical enforceability and facilitate the standardization of case criteria across different administrative law enforcement departments.
f) Systematic enumeration of non-infringing acts
Article 15 of the PPTS enumerates four types of acts that generally do not constitute trade secret infringement. These include independent research and development, reverse engineering, general knowledge or publicly available industry information, and disclosure for the purpose of safeguarding public interest. While these defenses have already been supported by judicial interpretations and authoritative case law, the PPTS lists these acts systematically for the first time, hereby providing clearer legal certainty and guidance.
g) Improvement of administrative procedures
In practice, filings of administrative trade secret cases have often been impeded by ambiguous thresholds for case filing, unclear evidentiary standards, etc. The PPTS addresses these issues by improving the provisions on following aspects.
(1) Case filing criteria
Article 19 of the PPTS explicitly lists three conditions for initiating a trade secret related administrative case, i.e. preliminary evidence proving an infringing act subject to administrative penalties, competent jurisdiction and filing within the statutory limitation period.
(2) Filing documents
Article 17 of the PPTS requires that when filing a report, right holders must submit not only preliminary evidence of their ownership but also specific clues regarding the alleged infringement. Article 18 systematically details the types of acceptable evidence and clues. Evidence includes documentation on the creation of the trade secret, its non-public nature, commercial value, confidentiality measures, etc. Specific clues cover channels through which the alleged infringer accessed the secret, evidence of breached security measures, indications that the secret was actually acquired, proof of its disclosure or unauthorized use, etc.
(3) Allocation of burden of proof
Article 20 of the PPTS maintains the requirement for rights holders to prove infringement. However, it lowers the evidentiary threshold. Rights holders are now only required to provide preliminary evidence proving that the information used by the alleged infringer is substantially identical to their trade secret, and the alleged infringer had the opportunity to access it. With these materials, the MSA then could determine infringement unless the suspected infringer proves lawful acquisition or use. It alleviates the evidentiary burden on rights holders while safeguarding procedural fairness.
(4) Appraisal institutions and expert opinions
Article 22 of the PPTS introduces specific rules. Both rights holders and alleged infringers may commission these institutions or experts with specialized knowledge to issue professional opinions on technical issues. This will assist the MSA in determining technical facts in trade secret cases, thereby ensuring enforcement accuracy, fairness, and efficiency.
(5) Investigative measures
Article 23 of the PPTS empowers the MSA to take five specific investigative actions, including inspecting business premises, questioning relevant personnel, querying and copying documents, seizing or sealing property and inspecting bank accounts. Notably, the authority to inspect bank accounts enables the MSA to trace fund flows related to infringement, enhancing the precision of enforcement. Besides, the PPTS specifies strict internal approval requirements for the MSA when adopting such investigative measures. Moreover, investigative measures with a greater impact are subject to a higher level of internal approval by the MSA. Meanwhile, it mandates that investigations shall minimize disruption to normal business operations. This article ensures effective investigative powers while preventing their abuse.
h) Enhancement of administrative penalties
To combat trade secret infringement, the MSA may order the cessation of infringing acts, confiscate the illegal gains or impose fines. Article 24 of the PPTS increases the maximum fine from RMB 200,000 to RMB five million, aligning it with the AUCL.
Meanwhile, Article 25 specifies four types of "cessation of infringing acts", including ceasing the use of trade secrets, returning or destroying relevant carriers, destroying infringing products and eliminating the trade secrets.
Furthermore, Article 26 explicitly lists four scenarios constituting "serious circumstances" for the fine from RMB one to five million, including causing relatively large direct losses, significant adverse effects on business operations, endangering national or social public interests and committing trade secret infringement again within two years.
3. Conclusion
The PPTS is constructing a more robust administrative protection system for trade secrets by reference to the relevant superior laws and insights from judicial practice. After the implementation of the PPTS, more enterprises may be inclined to use administrative procedures to cease the spread of infringing activities. Further, the PPTS serves as a critical benchmark for enterprises to refine their compliance with trade secrets protection, including improving confidentiality systems, optimizing protective measures, standardizing processes of confidential information, etc.
