China Issues New Intellectual Property Crime Enforcement Directiv

China just dropped a new “directive” on intellectual property (IP) crime enforcementofficially styled as
Opinions issued by the Ministry of Public Security (MPS). And if you’re thinking, “That sounds like a memo that will never leave a binder,”
think again. The rollout came paired with “typical cases” that read like a highlight reel of what Chinese police want to prioritize:
pirated engineering software, alleged trade-secret leaks to a foreign destination, counterfeit appliances sold online,
fake branded toys pushed through livestreaming, and counterfeit food products.

For businesses, brands, creators, and anyone who’s ever had to ask, “Is this supplier legit?” the signal is clear:
China wants criminal enforcement to play a bigger, more organized role in IP protectionespecially where innovation,
advanced industry, online commerce, and public safety overlap. That can be good news if you’re a rights holder.
It can also be a wake-up call if your compliance program is held together by vibes and a shared Google Sheet.

What China Announced (and Why It Matters)

The headline: MPS “Opinions” on cracking down on IP crimes

On July 16, 2025, China’s Ministry of Public Security announced the issuance of a new set of “Opinions” on lawfully combating
intellectual property crimes to support “high-quality development.” The full text wasn’t broadly posted in public channels at the time,
but the announcement outlined major enforcement priorities and the policing approach the government wants local public security bureaus to follow.

The policy “north star”: four focus areas

The announcement frames IP crime enforcement as a targeted (“precise”) effort across four buckets:
scientific and technological innovation; industrial development; cultural prosperity; and public safety/people’s livelihood.
In plain English: protect R&D, protect manufacturing and consumer brands, protect creative works, and protect the public from dangerous counterfeits.

That last point is especially important. When governments tie IP enforcement to public safetyfood, drugs, building materials,
electrical equipment, seeds and fertilizerthe tone changes. It becomes less “brand owners arguing over logos” and more
“this could hurt people,” which tends to unlock faster investigations and heavier consequences.

A noticeable emphasis: trade secrets and “new quality productive forces”

One of the most striking themes is trade secret protection. The announcement explicitly calls for deeper special work to prevent and combat
trade secret crimes, aligning with China’s broader industrial policy emphasis on innovation and advanced manufacturing.
If your company’s China plan involves joint development, supplier co-design, localized engineering, or hiring specialized talent,
trade-secret controls can’t be an afterthought.

The “Typical Cases” Tell You What Enforcement Will Look Like

Policy language can be lofty. Case examples are where you find the “okay, but what do they actually do?” details.
Alongside the Opinions announcement, authorities summarized five “typical cases.” Even without names, the fact patterns are instructive.

1) Software copyright infringement (pirated engineering tools)

In a February 2025 case out of Zaozhuang (Shandong), police reported arrests and seizures involving pirated engineering software
and a large number of encryption locks (dongles). Translation: expect enforcement not only against sellers of pirated software,
but also against the distribution infrastructure that makes piracy scalable.

2) Trade secrets allegedly provided to a “foreign” destination

A June 2023 case out of Ningbo (Zhejiang) involved alleged illegal provision of trade secrets tied to new energy technology.
Authorities described prompt interception of multiple technical secrets and arrests of multiple suspects.
Whether you’re a domestic company or a multinational, the message is the same: trade secret cases can be treated as high sensitivity,
especially in strategic industries.

3) Counterfeit home appliances + online store closures

A September 2024 case out of Suzhou (Anhui) described counterfeit branded refrigerators and the shutdown of numerous suspected counterfeit online stores.
This matters because it links physical counterfeiting to e-commerce enforcement actions.
If you sell in China through marketplacesor you source components in Chinayour risk map includes both factories and storefronts.

4) Fake branded toys sold through livestreaming

A March 2025 case in Beijing (Chaoyang) involved counterfeit branded toys sold through online livestreaming.
Livestreaming is a major sales channel in China. Enforcement that targets livestream-driven counterfeits is a signal that investigators
are paying attention to modern retail mechanicsnot just old-school “warehouse full of fake handbags” scenarios.

5) Counterfeit food products

An August 2024 case in Harbin (Heilongjiang) involved counterfeit branded sausages, including alleged online sales channels.
Food counterfeiting is the kind of fact pattern that shifts IP enforcement into a broader public safety narrativeoften meaning more urgency,
wider coordination, and less tolerance for “we didn’t know.”

How This Fits into China’s Broader IP Enforcement Direction

A parallel track: a major 2025 judicial interpretation on criminal IP cases

This MPS move didn’t happen in a vacuum. Earlier in 2025, China’s Supreme People’s Court (SPC) and Supreme People’s Procuratorate (SPP)
issued a judicial interpretation clarifying how criminal IP cases should be handled, effective April 26, 2025.
It addresses trademark counterfeiting and sales, copyright crimes, patent counterfeiting, trade secret misappropriation, and sentencing issues.

Among the practical impacts: more detailed definitions (for example, what counts as the “same kind” of goods or services),
clearer approaches to calculating trade-secret losses, and explicit treatment of “helping” behaviors (like providing logistics,
payment services, warehousing, or technical support) as potential co-offense participation when done knowingly.
In other words, the ecosystem around infringement gets more scrutinynot just the person printing the fake label.

“Foreign-related” protection and international cooperation

The MPS announcement also points toward deeper international law enforcement cooperation and stronger protection of foreign-related IP.
That’s worth noticing because cross-border dimensions are common in modern IP crime: servers abroad, payments routed through intermediaries,
or goods shipped in small parcels. Expect more attention to coordination mechanisms and cross-border evidence.

What It Means for Companies: Benefits, Risks, and Reality Checks

If you’re an IP rights holder: enforcement could become more usable

Criminal enforcement isn’t always the first tool companies reach for, because it can feel unpredictable:
thresholds, local priorities, evidence standards, and timing can vary. A directive that emphasizes professionalization,
specialized teams, and coordinated crackdowns suggests China wants more consistent outcomesespecially where harms are large,
organized, or tied to public safety.

Practically, that could mean:
faster action against organized counterfeit networks;
stronger responses to trade secret theft allegations in strategic industries;
more pressure on online storefronts and livestream channels; and
greater willingness to handle complex cases that require technical expertise.

If you operate in China: “we didn’t know” gets less comfortable

The same enforcement upgrades that help rights holders can increase compliance exposure for businesses:
using unlicensed software, buying gray-market components, outsourcing packaging without controls,
or letting third-party sellers “do their thing” online can create real risk.
When enforcement focuses on modern retail channels and supply chain support services, compliance responsibilities widen.

If you’re caught in a dispute: distinguish IP enforcement from business conflict

A serious enforcement posture doesn’t automatically mean every accusation is valid.
Some commercial disputes can be dressed up as “IP crimes,” especially when parties are fighting over market share, employees, or distribution.
Strong internal documentationlicenses, R&D logs, supplier due diligence, and clean chain-of-title for creative assetscan be the difference
between “this is messy” and “this is manageable.”

Practical Steps: How to Reduce Risk and Use the System Wisely

1) Build an “evidence-ready” enforcement file

If you ever need to act quickly, you don’t want to be assembling proof like it’s a last-minute science fair project.
Maintain a current enforcement packet that includes:
registration certificates (trademarks, copyrights, patents where relevant),
ownership structure and authorization documents,
product identification guides (how to spot real vs fake),
and a clear description of harm (safety, consumers, scale, channels).

2) Treat software compliance like an IP-crime prevention measure

One typical case centered on pirated engineering software. That should make every manufacturing and R&D organization pause.
Run periodic audits for engineering tools, CAD software, analytics platforms, and specialized plugins.
Make sure procurement records exist, licenses are assigned properly, and contractors aren’t quietly using “creative” downloads to meet deadlines.

3) Upgrade trade secret hygiene (and assume insiders are part of the threat model)

Trade secret protection is not a single document labeled “CONFIDENTIAL” in 72-point font.
It’s access controls, segmentation, logging, exit protocols, and contractual clarity.
Focus on:
least-privilege access to formulas and designs,
controlled data rooms for joint projects,
careful use of personal devices and removable media,
and strong onboarding/offboarding for technical staff.

4) Monitor online channels like they’re storefronts (because they are)

Livestreaming and marketplace storefronts matter. Set up routine sweeps for counterfeit listings,
coordinate with platforms on takedowns, and track repeat sellers.
If you sell via authorized distributors, require online channel transparency: what stores, what accounts, what livestream partners.
“We have a distributor” is not a strategy. It’s a starting point.

5) Align China enforcement with global compliance and investigations

If you’re a multinational, connect the dots between IP enforcement and broader compliance:
vendor onboarding, anti-fraud controls, product safety testing, cybersecurity, and incident response.
Counterfeit goods often overlap with safety and fraud issues, and trade secret cases often overlap with cyber or insider risk.

What to Watch Next

• Local implementation: whether provincial and municipal public security units issue follow-on guidance or launch special campaigns.
• More published cases: typical cases are usually a preview of what enforcement agencies want to see (and be seen doing).
• Coordination signals: more visible collaboration among police, prosecutors, regulators, and platformsespecially for online sales.
• Trade secret enforcement patterns: sectors like new energy, advanced manufacturing, and digital tech are likely to remain high attention.

Conclusion

China’s new IP crime enforcement directive (the MPS “Opinions”) is best understood as a blueprint for making criminal enforcement more targeted,
more professional, and more aligned with national prioritiesinnovation, advanced industry, cultural markets, and public safety.
The five typical cases underscore where enforcement energy is going: software piracy, trade secrets, online counterfeiting, livestream sales,
and counterfeit goods that touch daily life.

For rights holders, this can create more optionsespecially when harm is organized, scalable, or safety-related.
For companies operating in China, it’s also a reminder that IP compliance is not a “legal department hobby.”
It’s operational risk management. The organizations that do best are the ones that pair strong internal controls with evidence-ready enforcement plans,
and treat online and supply-chain visibility as non-negotiable.

Experience Notes (500+ Words): What Practitioners Learn the Hard Way

When companies talk about “IP enforcement in China,” the conversation often starts with a dramatic question:
“Can we get the police involved?” In practice, the more important question is boringbut powerful:
“Can we prove our story quickly, clearly, and in the format authorities will accept?”
That’s where the real-world experiences pile up.

One recurring lesson is that speed favors the prepared. Teams that maintain an up-to-date portfolio summary,
clean ownership records, and product authentication guides can move faster when a counterfeit spike hits.
Teams that scramble to locate certificates, internal approvals, or distributor authorizations tend to lose momentum.
The difference isn’t legal geniusit’s operational discipline.

Another common experience: the “online vs offline” divide is mostly imaginary. Counterfeit networks are rarely pure e-commerce
or pure factory operations; they blend channels. A counterfeit appliance listing may be backed by a small workshop and a rotating set
of storefront accounts. A livestream seller may not own inventory but may be tightly linked to a supplier that churns out product at scale.
Companies that treat online enforcement as mere “takedowns” often watch the same seller pop back up like an unwanted sequel.
The stronger approach is to map the network: repeated phone numbers, logistics patterns, payment routes, and product identifiers.
Even basic pattern tracking can turn whack-a-mole into something closer to strategy.

Trade secrets bring a different kind of hard-earned wisdom: your biggest vulnerabilities are often ordinary.
Shared drives with broad access. Engineering files synced to personal devices. Vendors receiving more technical detail than needed.
Former employees retaining access longer than anyone wants to admit. In many organizations, trade-secret protection fails quietly,
long before any dramatic “theft” happens. That’s why modern enforcement priorities around trade secrets matter:
they incentivize companies to treat access control, logging, and offboarding as core security practicesnot optional paperwork.

Software compliance is another area where experience beats intention. Many companies believe they are compliant because they bought licenses
but then usage sprawls. A contractor installs extra copies to meet a deadline. A team uses an unlicensed plugin because “it’s just a small tool.”
An engineering group shares credentials to avoid procurement delays. And suddenly the company has exposure that looks a lot less like
a licensing issue and a lot more like a compliance failure. The typical case involving pirated engineering software is a reminder that
authorities may see software piracy as a real enforcement priority, not a minor technicality.

Finally, practitioners consistently note that good enforcement outcomes often depend on being a helpful partner, not just an angry victim.
Clear evidence packages, straightforward explanations of harm, and responsive points of contact matter.
When an issue implicates safetylike counterfeit food, electrical components, or building materialscompanies that can document safety risks,
consumer confusion, and scale often find that their complaints land with more urgency.
The “secret sauce” isn’t shouting louder; it’s showing clearly why the conduct is harmful and provable.

Put all these experiences together and the takeaway is surprisingly simple:
China’s stronger stance on IP crime enforcement rewards operational readiness.
If your organization wants better protection, build the boring foundationsclean records, controlled access, online monitoring,
supplier discipline, and licensing hygiene. Then, if enforcement becomes necessary, you’re not improvising under pressure.
You’re executing a plan.