On July 23, 2026, Premier Li Qiang signed Decree No. 842 of the State Council to promulgate the revised Regulations on the Protection of Integrated Circuit Layout‑Designs. Revised and adopted at the 91st Executive Meeting of the State Council on July 10, 2026, the Regulations shall come into force on October 15, 2026.

This marks the first systematic revision since the Regulations were enacted in 2001. After 25 years, what are the key revisions, and what do they mean for China’s chip industry?

1. Expanded Scope of Protection: Photonic and Quantum Chips Covered

The most notable change of this revision is the inclusion of “layout‑designs of integrated circuits with integrated photonic, quantum and other functions” under statutory protection.

When the original 2001 Regulations were formulated, protection was focused on traditional semiconductor integrated circuits in light of industrial realities. Twenty‑five years on, the process of traditional semiconductor transistors is approaching physical and technical limits. Disruptive technologies such as photonics and quantum are emerging, and the integrated‑circuit industry has entered the “post‑Moore era”, where competition centers on new architectures, new mechanisms and new materials.

In practice, product iteration cycles for photonic and quantum chips keep shortening. Layout architectures including waveguide arrangement, quantum‑bit layout, three‑dimensional heterogeneous interconnection and topology optimization have become core points of technical competition. Under the old definition of integrated circuits, layout‑designs of new‑generation chips would face insufficient legal basis for right confirmation and inconsistent judicial and administrative adjudication standards.

While retaining the definition of traditional integrated circuits, the revised Regulations explicitly grant protection to layout‑designs of integrated circuits embedding photonic, quantum and other functions. This amendment removes legislative barriers for IP protection of new‑type chips.

2. Originality Statement: Clarifying the Ambiguous “Originality” Requirement

Originality is the substantive prerequisite for registration and legal protection of layout‑designs. Although the old Regulations set forth the originality requirement, the registration procedure lacked mechanisms to specify all necessary information concerning originality in practice. The connotation and denotation of originality remained vague, leading to high adjudication costs.

The revised Regulations introduce an “originality statement” requirement. Applicants must submit written documents specifying original design regions, key design points and corresponding functions of the layout‑design. Upon registration, the originality statement will be archived officially and serve as key statutory documentary evidence for judging whether a layout‑design possesses originality.

This institutional reform brings three major benefits: the scope of rights becomes clearer, preventing right‑holders from arbitrarily expanding protection scope in subsequent proceedings; rights‑enforcement costs are greatly reduced, lowering evidentiary and appraisal costs related to determining the scope of protection; commercial transactions are facilitated, so transferees in assignment, licensing or pledge scenarios can accurately assess technical value and legal boundaries.

3. Punitive Damages: Up to Five Times Compensation for Intentional Infringement

Provisions for infringement compensation in the former Regulations were relatively general. Drawing reference from the Patent Law, the revised Regulations clarify that damages may be calculated based on the right‑holder’s actual losses, infringer’s illegal gains or multiples of reasonable licensing fees.

Notably, a punitive‑damages system is introduced: for intentional infringement of layout‑design exclusive rights under serious circumstances, compensation may be set at 1‑5 times the amount determined by the aforesaid calculation methods.

Registered layout‑designs contain numerous original details. Strengthened application documentation requirements make original features easier to verify. The introduction of punitive damages creates substantial deterrence: infringement will no longer carry trivial costs, and wrongdoers may face multi‑fold compensation liabilities.

4. Procedural Improvements: Standardized Application and More Transparent Revocation

The revised Regulations optimize multiple procedures for application and examination:

• Regulating fraudulent applications: layout‑design registration applications must be based on genuine creative activities; falsification is prohibited.
• Introducing request‑based revocation procedure: under the old regime, revocation could only be initiated ex‑officio by CNIPA, while third parties could only submit suggestions. The new rules allow any party to file a request for revocation if a registration is non‑compliant with statutory requirements.
• Adding right restoration procedure: parties who miss statutory time‑limits due to force majeure and suffer loss of rights may apply for restoration.

In addition, the principle of good faith runs through the whole lifecycle of layout‑design application and right exercise. New provisions are also added requiring legal‑person and unincorporated‑entity employers to pay reasonable rewards and remuneration to creators.

Significance of the Revision: Building a Robust Legal Barrier for Chip Innovation

Overall, this revision substantially raises China’s protection standard for integrated‑circuit layout‑designs. It responds to protection demands of cutting‑edge technologies such as photonic and quantum chips. Institutional tools including originality statements and punitive damages form a complete protection chain covering right confirmation through to infringement sanctions.

Since 2022, the number of layout‑design registration applications for integrated circuits containing photonic and quantum devices has been rising, with large‑scale filings emerging after 2024. Aligned with industrial development, the revised Regulations will boost incentives for innovation entities.

For chip‑design enterprises, the new rules bring stronger legal protection together with higher compliance burdens. How to draft originality statements and define right boundaries have become critical new tasks.

For potential infringers, the signal is unambiguous: in the key chip sector, the legal “moat” for intellectual‑property protection is being broadened and deepened.