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 2025

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

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

Price hikes at ‘big law’ firms are pushing some clients toward boutiques that offer predictable fees, specialised expertise, and a model built around prioritising IP
The Australian side, in particular, can benefit by capitalising on its independent status to bring in more work from Western countries while still working with its former Chinese partner
Koen Bijvank of Brinkhof and Johannes Heselberger of Bardehle Pagenberg discuss the Amgen v Sanofi case and why it will be cited frequently
View the official winners of the 2025 Social Impact EMEA Awards
King & Wood Mallesons will break into two entities, 14 years after a merger between a Chinese and an Australian firm created the combined outfit
Teams from Shakespeare Martineau and DWF will take centre stage in a dispute concerning the registrability of dairy terminology in plant-based products
Senem Kayahan, attorney and founder at PatentSe, discusses how she divides prosecution tasks, and reveals the importance of empathetic client advice
The association’s Australian group has filed a formal complaint against the choice of venue, citing Dubai as an unsafe environment for the LGBTQIA+ community
Firm says appointment of Nick McDonald will boost its expertise in cross-border disputes, including at the Unified Patent Court
In the final episode of a podcast series celebrating the tenth anniversary of IP Inclusive, we discuss the IP Inclusive Charter and the senior leaders’ pledge
Gift this article