Shenzhen Trade Secret Protection in 2025: Regulatory Guidance, Co-Ordinated Enforcement, and Judicial Breakthroughs

Trade secrets constitute a vital form of intellectual property and play a key role in enterprises maintaining a competitive edge. With intensifying domestic and international market competition and the frequent movement of talent, disputes over trade secret infringement are on the rise. At the same time, amid new technological evolution, developments in new frontiers and business forms – including big data and AI – present fresh challenges when it comes to the protection of trade secrets. As a national pilot city for innovative trade secret protection, Shenzhen has continued to scale up its efforts in trade secret protection, exploring the construction of a comprehensive and systematic protection mechanism. At regulatory level, Shenzhen has introduced multiple industry-specific guidelines; at enforcement level, the city has explored mechanisms for multi-sectoral co-ordination; and at judicial level, it has clarified adjudication rules through typical cases. This article will examine the key trends and institutional innovations in Shenzhen’s trade secret protection in 2025 from these three perspectives.

Continued refinement and enhancement of regulatory guidance

In April 2025, the State Administration for Market Regulation issued the “Provisions on the Protection of Trade Secrets (Exposure Draft)” for public comments. This revision further refined the definition of concepts related to trade secrets, encouraged the establishment of robust trade secret protection management systems, and detailed specific forms of infringement to address new types of infringing acts. On 24 February 2026, the State Administration for Market Regulation officially promulgated the “Provisions on the Protection of Trade Secrets” via Order No 126, to take effect on 1 June 2026. The new regulations have incorporated recent judicial experience and responded to practical market demands regarding the scope of protected subject matter, infringement determination, confidentiality measures, and legitimate defences. The standards for civil, administrative, and criminal protection of trade secrets have been largely unified, thereby reshaping the trade secret protection framework. The provisions not only give clearer guidance for rights holders regarding trade secret compliance and rights enforcement but also further clarify the direction for the publication of subsequent implementing rules or guidelines.

In December 2025, the Shenzhen Municipal Administration for Market Regulation issued the “Guidelines for the Protection of Trade Secrets in the Low-Altitude Economy Industry” and the “Guidelines for the Protection of Trade Secrets in the Biomedical Industry” (Notice No 196 [2025] of the Shenzhen Municipal Administration for Market Regulation). These two documents closely address the technical characteristics of the two industries (eg, core algorithms in the low-altitude economy, clinical trial data in biomedicine), providing companies with practical operational guidelines for trade secret protection covering pre-incident, ongoing, and post-incident stages. This includes how to effectively identify and define trade secrets, how to establish solid internal protection systems, how to prevent infringement upon others’ trade secrets, and how to safeguard rights when trade secret infringement occurs. The issuance of these guidelines represents a precise response to the protection needs of the low-altitude economy and biomedical industries. Such industry-specific and tailored guidance addresses the demand for differentiated protection of new quality productive forces. As technological iteration accelerates, additional segmented industries (such as AI and robotics) are expected to see similar “customised” protection rules, promoting the in-depth development of trade secret protection within specific sectors.

Diversified and co-ordinated enforcement mechanisms emphasising both deterrence and prevention

The protection of trade secrets requires a multi-dimensional accountability mechanism, where different forms of liability perform distinct yet complementary roles. Shenzhen has preliminarily established a tripartite trade secret protection system comprising “administrative supervision + criminal enforcement + civil recovery”.

Shenzhen has achieved significant breakthroughs in the criminal sphere. In January 2025, the Shenzhen Municipal People’s Procuratorate, in conjunction with the Municipal Public Security Bureau, the Municipal Administration for Market Regulation, and the Municipal Bureau of Culture, Radio, Television, Tourism, and Sports, issued the “Guidelines on Evidence Collection and Review in Cases Linking Administrative Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice for Trade Secret Infringement (for Trial Implementation)”. This document stipulates evidence standards concerning trade secret ownership, infringing acts, damage determination, criminalisation thresholds, and sentencing considerations. It closely adheres to the statutory elements of criminal trade secret infringement and clarifies the evidence collection and review standards required for administrative agencies to refer suspected criminal cases. The promulgation of this document signifies further refinement in the “linkage between administrative law and criminal law” for trade secrets, thereby strengthening the crackdown on trade secret violations and related crimes. In April 2025, under the command of the Guangdong Provincial Public Security Department, the Shenzhen Public Security Bureau, acting on a corporate complaint, uncovered a case involving the infringement of trade secrets belonging to a well-known technology company. Seven suspects were apprehended and criminally detained, with the amount involved exceeding CNY100 million. This case was listed among the top-ten typical cases in the Guangdong Public Security 2025 campaign against intellectual property infringement crimes, demonstrating Shenzhen’s zero tolerance towards trade secret violations.

In the administrative arena, the Shenzhen Municipal Administration for Market Regulation has specifically formulated guidelines for administrative enforcement concerning trade secrets and continuously intensified enforcement efforts. In terms of enforcement outcomes, since the commencement of the pilot innovation initiative, a cumulative total of 31 trade secret cases have been investigated and addressed, with three cases referred for criminal prosecution, effectively safeguarding the rights and interests of innovation entities. Regarding enforcement approach, acknowledging the private right nature of trade secrets, enforcement agencies have adjusted their case-handling approaches. To be more specific, while combating trade secret crimes is vital, the importance of preventing trade secret leakage, achieving an equal emphasis on deterrence and prevention, has also been stressed. In terms of service mechanisms, enforcement agencies also provide companies with “one-stop” trade secret protection services. Leveraging the “Golden Inner Bay” Foreign-Related Trade Secret Protection Base, they continuously explore foreign-related trade secret protection mechanisms, offering training programmes and salon events, thereby supporting innovation entities as they participate in international competition. Furthermore, proactively providing early warning and protection is one of the key measures introduced by the Shenzhen Public Security Bureau to serve high-quality development. It is reported that the Food, Drug, and Environmental Crime Investigation Division of the Shenzhen Public Security Bureau has established an on-site legal education team, which frequently visits various companies to conduct outreach and education on intellectual property protection, assisting companies in improving their internal self-protection systems. Through initiatives such as establishing a fast-track mechanism for key enterprises, strengthening preventive education and training, and enhancing pre-case compliance guidance, they systematically elevate security and prevention capabilities. Since the beginning of 2025, they have cumulatively visited and liaised with dozens of key companies.

Flexible and pragmatic judicial adjudication rules safeguarding the innovation ecosystem

In April 2025, the Shenzhen Intermediate People’s Court issued the “Guidelines on Trade Secret Management and Enforcement for Enterprises”. This document meticulously analyses typical trade secret cases adjudicated by courts nationwide in recent years, outlines common disclosure scenarios across the entire enterprise lifecycle – from R&D and production to operations – and spans different stages including personnel recruitment, business negotiation, and marketing. It also selects several typical cases to interpret each disclosure scenario. The following section summarises two adjudicative trends based on these typical cases.

i) More flexible examination and determination standards for trade secrets

According to Article 10, paragraph 4 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law of the People’s Republic of China, a trade secret refers to technical information, business information, or other commercial information that is unknown to the public, of commercial value, and for which the rights holder has adopted corresponding confidentiality measures. Determining the existence of a trade secret requires satisfying three constitutive elements simultaneously, as follows: (i) secrecy (“not known to the public”); (ii) confidentiality (“adoption of corresponding confidentiality measures”); and (iii) value (“possession of commercial value”). Judicial practice indicates that courts are adopting more flexible and multi-dimensional approaches in examining and determining these three elements, seeking a balance between “fairness and efficiency”. The goal is to strengthen trade secret protection while preventing rights holders from abusing their rights in a manner that impedes technological exchange and market competition.

For instance, in (2021) Yue Min Chu No 1114 (Shenzhen Intermediate People’s Ct. 2021), the court held that the information recorded in the process logs claimed for protection by Sai Company was generated during the production process and constituted specific information held by the producer. Although such information comprises process data and does not form a specific and explicit technical solution, it possesses clear commercial value for subsequent experimentation or production, because knowing one additional piece of failure data reduces trial-and-error costs. This demonstrates that the court no longer emphasises “practicability” for value requirement, but rather requires the presence of “actual or potential commercial value”.

Similarly, in (2020) Yue 03 Min Chu No 5073 (Shenzhen Intermediate People’s Ct. 2020), the court opined that the standard for determining “confidentiality” of a trade secret varies among different enterprises and industries. Companies should integrate their own characteristics, industry nature, and the specific content of the trade secret, combining management experience with legal requirements to construct a dynamic and effective long-term protection mechanism for trade secrets.

ii) Continued expansion of the scope of trade secret protection

In the digital economy era, the carriers of trade secrets and the methods of infringement have undergone significant changes. Judicial adjudication has adapted to the trends of digital economic development, moving beyond the narrow traditional definition of trade secrets as “technical information” and “business information” to include digital assets such as data, algorithms, and code within the scope of trade secret protection.

For example, in January 2025, the Supreme People’s Court published eight typical cases concerning the protection of scientific and technological innovation. The “Intelligent Search Algorithm” trade secret infringement dispute, adjudicated at first instance by the Shenzhen Intermediate People’s Court (Case No 3843 (2021) Yue 03 Min Chu), was included as an exemplary illustration of “algorithms obtaining trade secret protection according to law and exploring adjudication rules for new types of intellectual property”. Specifically, the court held that protecting an algorithm as a trade secret does not mean protecting a single mathematical calculation method but involves a holistic consideration of the protected subject matter. The core of the algorithm lies in the selection and optimisation of models and the elimination of mutual interference among models to achieve optimal braking effects. Even if the individual models used in a recommendation or search algorithm are publicly known, it is the specific selection and weighted ranking of those models that warrants trade secret protection – provided the rights holder has taken corresponding confidentiality measures and the combination yields commercial benefits and a competitive edge. This case represents the first instance nationwide where an algorithm was protected as a trade secret, responding to the urgent needs of enterprises for protecting new types of technological achievements. It reflects the tendency of trade secret protection to keep pace with the developing needs of new productive forces and the inclination of people’s courts to strengthen institutional supply in new fields and tracks, providing predictable judicial safeguards for trade secret protection in the digital age.

Conclusion

The year 2025 marked a pivotal period in the development of China’s trade secret protection framework. Continuous innovation at regulatory level laid a foundation for subsequent rule refinement and provided targeted practical tools for emerging industries. Co-ordinated mechanisms at enforcement level demonstrated a more robust enforcement paradigm that emphasised both deterrence and prevention, facilitating synergy between administrative and criminal justice. Innovative judicial adjudication effectively enhanced the efficacy of trade secret protection, providing strong legal safeguards for market entities’ innovation-driven development and fair competition. These regulatory advancements, enforcement synergies, and judicial breakthroughs collectively contributed to shaping a new landscape for trade secret protection in Shenzhen, significantly strengthening rights holders’ expectations of protection and their capacity for rights enforcement. For companies operating in Shenzhen and the Greater Bay Area, staying abreast of these trends and integrating trade secret protection throughout daily management has become an indispensable strategy for maintaining core competitiveness in a fiercely contested market.