Trade secrets are vital intangible assets for companies, encompassing both technical and business information. When trade secrets are infringed upon, rights holders can seek administrative, civil, or criminal remedies based on the specific circumstances of the case. Under China’s legal framework, market supervision authorities investigate and handle suspected trade secret infringement in accordance with the Anti-Unfair Competition Law and other regulations, providing rights holders with a remedial pathway outside of judicial proceedings. This article analyzes the institutional framework and procedural characteristics of the administrative protection of trade secrets in China, as well as its primary differences from judicial protection, and discusses the factors companies should consider when choosing a remedial pathway.
Administrative protection of trade secrets refers to the investigation and handling of suspected acts of unfair competition involving trade secret infringement by market supervision authorities in accordance with statutory duties and powers. Current systems also allow market regulatory authorities to guide business operators in establishing and improving trade secret protection systems through promotional training, risk warnings, and compliance guidance; such guidance work should be distinguished from administrative law enforcement in specific cases in terms of nature and effect.
Administrative procedures are typically initiated through complaints and reports by rights holders, or the transfer of clues from relevant departments. Market regulatory authorities may lawfully question relevant personnel, inspect and copy relevant materials, and take corresponding actions against suspected infringing acts. While administrative organs possess statutory investigative powers, rights holders are still required to initially clarify the scope of the trade secrets they assert, and submit materials concerning confidentiality, economic value, confidentiality measures, and facts of suspected infringement. Whether a case can be filed and effectively disposed of depends on the factual basis, evidentiary conditions, and statutory procedures of the individual case.
In recent years, while improving the trade secret protection system, the State Administration for Market Regulation of China has continuously deployed special law enforcement actions against unfair competition in key fields. In 2024, market regulatory authorities at all levels nationwide investigated and handled a total of 14,188 cases of unfair competition, including 143 cases of trade secret infringement; market regulatory authorities also selected and publicly released 8 typical cases to play a demonstration role and further clarify enforcement standards and behavioral boundaries.
In addition to case investigations, market regulatory authorities in some regions have also carried out trade secret protection publicity, training, and compliance guidance. Such measures help companies improve their internal systems, but companies still need to combine their own business characteristics to continuously strengthen the identification of confidential information, classified management, implementation of confidentiality measures, and evidence preservation.
II. Legal and Regulatory Framework for the Administrative Protection of Trade Secrets
Following years of legislative improvement and upgrading, China has formed a comprehensive legal framework for the administrative protection of trade secrets with clear levels and broad coverage, comprising laws, administrative regulations, departmental rules, and local norms. This framework features precise enforcement standards, unified adjudication standards, and continuously escalating penalties.
(1) Core Superior Laws
(2) Specialized Departmental Rules
Provisions on the Protection of Trade Secrets (Officially effective June 1, 2026): Promulgated by the State Administration for Market Regulation of China, this is the country's first specialized administrative regulation on trade secrets, upgrading the original 12 simple rules into 31 comprehensive norms. It precisely details the standards for trade secret recognition, rules for determining infringement, and rules for the allocation of the burden of proof, targeting long-standing industry pain points such as "difficulty in bearing the burden of proof, difficulty in filing cases, difficulty in recognition, and difficulty in punishment," while unifying national administrative enforcement standards. It currently serves as the core practical guide for administrative enforcement regarding trade secrets.
(3) Supplementary Collaborative Regulations and Local Norms
The Administrative Punishment Law regulates the procedural legality of administrative enforcement regarding trade secrets. Localities across China have formulated trade secret protection cooperation mechanisms and special implementation rules based on regional industrial characteristics. For example, Fujian Province took the lead nationwide in issuing a provincial trade secret protection cooperation mechanism, opening up a full-chain protection channel encompassing administration, civil affairs, criminal justice, and procuratorates; major industrial provinces such as Sichuan, Jiangsu, and Guangdong have successively released local enforcement guidelines, forming a governance pattern of "unified national norms with localized precision landing."
III. Primary Differences Between Administrative Protection and Judicial Protection and Path Selection
Administrative protection and judicial protection differ in their initiation methods, investigative mechanisms, available remedies, and procedural functions. The two are not simply superior or inferior to one another; companies should make choices based on their enforcement objectives, evidentiary status, case urgency, and subsequent accountability arrangements. The following comparison illustrates the applicable characteristics of different pathways rather than presetting that one pathway is inherently superior to another.
(1) Initiation Methods and Evidentiary Requirements
Civil litigation generally requires the rights holder to propose claims and submit evidence regarding the composition, ownership, infringing acts, and damage consequences of the trade secret; whereas administrative organs may conduct investigations and gather evidence in accordance with the law after filing a case. However, administrative investigations do not exempt the rights holder from preliminary preparation obligations. Rights holders should still clarify the secret points as much as possible, explain the confidentiality measures taken, and provide clues of infringement such as the possibility of contact, identity of information, or substantial similarity. When materials are insufficient, administrative procedures may likewise find it difficult to be initiated or advanced.
(2) Procedural Tools for Timely Cessation of Infringement
Administrative organs may investigate suspected infringing acts and make administrative dispositions within their statutory powers. In cases where facts are relatively clear, clues are relatively concentrated, and investigation is convenient, this may help timely halt illegal acts. However, the complexity of the case, cross-regional evidence collection, technical appraisal, and the cooperation of the parties involved may all affect processing progress. For urgent cases where ongoing infringement may cause irreparable harm, rights holders can also evaluate the feasibility of applying for a preservation of behavior through civil litigation.
(3) Available Processing Results and Remedial Objectives
Administrative procedures focus on halting illegal acts, confiscating illegal gains, and imposing administrative penalties, primarily maintaining market competition order; civil procedures can address private right remedies such as stopping infringement and claims for damages; cases reaching criminal prosecution standards may enter criminal procedures. If a company's primary goal is to obtain compensation, apply for behavioral preservation, or pursue criminal responsibility, it generally cannot rely solely on administrative complaints and should plan corresponding procedures holistically.
(4) Administrative Guidance and Company Internal Prevention
The promotional training, risk warnings, and compliance guidance carried out by market regulatory authorities can provide references for companies to improve their trade secret management. However, administrative guidance is not a confirmation of the effectiveness of a company's protection system, nor can it replace a company identifying core information based on its own business, setting access permissions, signing confidentiality documents, carrying out departure management, and continuously preserving evidence. Whether a company can obtain legal protection ultimately depends on statutory constituent elements and individual case facts.
(5) Boundaries of Application for Administrative Protection
The scope, carriers, and protection measures of trade secrets are usually held internally by companies, making it difficult for administrative organs to proactively identify specific secrets and infringement facts relying solely on daily supervision. Consequently, administrative protection in practice often relies on rights holders providing clear, verifiable clues and continuously cooperating with investigations. Cases involving complex technical comparisons, cross-border evidence collection, multi-party liabilities, or high amounts of damages also require comprehensive handling combined with civil, criminal, or other procedures.
Conclusion
Administrative protection and judicial protection under the Chinese trade secret regime each have their own characteristics in terms of initiation conditions, methods of investigation, processing time, and remedial effect. Administrative proceedings can provide a relatively direct enforcement path for certain trade secret infringement disputes in China, but their practical effectiveness still depends on the constitution of the trade secret, the infringement leads, the evidential basis, and the specific enforcement conditions. Where damages, interim relief, or criminal liability are involved, civil or criminal procedures must still be considered in an overall and co-ordinated manner.
For companies, the choice of remedial path should not be made on the basis of an abstract judgment as to which route is better. Instead, it should be based on specific objectives such as stopping infringement, preserving evidence, and recovering losses, while comprehensively assessing the urgency of the case, the evidence in hand, the adequacy of confidentiality measures, and subsequent litigation arrangements. Where necessary, an interface plan between administrative complaints and judicial remedies may be designed with the support of professional legal advice so as to improve the precision and practical enforceability of rights protection.
