Why China's administrative agencies should not be given new power

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2026

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Cookies Settings

Why China's administrative agencies should not be given new power

A leading Chinese academic has told Managing IP that amendments to the country’s IP laws should strengthen the role of the courts rather than giving more power to local administrative agencies

China is due to revise three major pieces of legislation in the next few years: the Patent, Copyright and Trade Mark Acts.

But Liu Chuntian, professor of law at Renmin University of China and an influential adviser on intellectual property law, said that the changes should ensure that the courts are given more powers to enforce the law.

“There is a push by some administrative agencies to give more power to the local agencies, and I am concerned that this might hurt the balance of power and the rule of law by giving them too much power,” Liu told Managing IP.

“If the local agencies are given more power, there is greater concern for abuse, and that they will set up burdens and hurdles to businesses.”

The vagaries of administrative enforcement in China have long been the subject of complaint among IP owners in China. While many administrative officers work efficiently and effectively, some local agencies have a reputation for protectionism and corruption.

During the interview, Liu also questioned whether SIPO, China’s state intellectual property office, has the necessary clout to oversee the implementation of the country’s National IP Strategy.

He said that SIPO, a body at the vice-ministry level of China’s government, must co-ordinate 29 ministry-level agencies who are putting the strategy into practice.

“Plans like the National IP strategy require a very high level of coordination between the government agencies and I think there are some difficulties in achieving this. Japan has a similar IP strategy, but its plan is led by the Prime Minister’s office, which has a lot more influence than SIPO within the Chinese government,” he said.

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Cabinet M Oproiu’s Raluca Vasilescu explains why AI is changing what clients expect from patent attorneys, where the technology is overhyped and what the next generation will need to do differently
As clients demand more flexible fees and AI-driven efficiencies, IP firms are rethinking pricing without abandoning the value of their work
HG Law was formed largely by ex Fish & Neave lawyers who left after the latter's merger with Ropes & Gray; now those experiences are shaping its latest combination
David Rodrigues and Evan Lazerowitz – attorneys at Robinson & Cole – offer practical guidance on the steps a business might consider to preserve and maximise IP value before entering financial distress or insolvency
Daniel Law CEO Alicia Daniel-Shores may have stepped into a family business, but she has spent two decades building her own vision around technology and litigation
Law firms don't particularly like saying no to clients. Perhaps they should get better at it
The office, which has a relatively new patent litigation team as well as a wider ‘soft’ IP offering, would remain independent if the rejection is rubberstamped
The IP boutique is betting that growing investment in quantum and semiconductors will fuel demand as technology shifts toward physical systems
Lawyers say the overhaul better reflects commercial reality, with changes spanning novelty searches, digital designs and access to a small claims track, but stopping short of criminalising unregistered design infringement
Carpmaels & Ransford hires its fourth partner of the year and wins access to UPC files, as fresh orders address costs, confidentiality and the use of divisional patents
Gift this article