In July 2026, the State Council issued the Plan for the Protection and Application of Intellectual Property Rights in the 15th Five‑Year Period (Guo Fa〔2026〕No.30). One striking signal from this document is that “improving intellectual‑property protection rules for algorithms, artificial‑intelligence‑generated works and platform‑economy‑related scenarios” has been incorporated into a national five‑year intellectual‑property plan for the first time.

Meanwhile, the plan puts forward new formulations such as “expanding intellectual‑property supply for the development of new‑quality productive forces” and “accelerating the cultivation and development of the intellectual‑property factor market”. Xiao Youdan, researcher at the Institutes of Science and Development, Chinese Academy of Sciences, commented: “The most explicit signal delivered by the plan is that the policy role of intellectual property has changed.”

Context: Intellectual‑property System Playing Catch‑up for AI

Generative AI is reshaping innovation patterns at an unprecedented pace. As of December 2025, China’s generative‑AI user base reached 602 million, with a penetration rate of 42.8%. Yet technology advances faster than supporting rules.

AI brings comprehensive challenges to the traditional intellectual‑property system: can AI‑generated content obtain IP protection? Is authorization required for data used in model training? How to allocate liability when AI produces infringing outputs? Legal gaps exist across the whole chain: lawful utilization of training data on the input side, right ownership of AI‑generated outputs on the output side, and the boundary of responsibilities among developers, operators and end‑users.

Policy Shift: A Cognitive Revolution From “Protecting Outcomes” to “Supporting Supply”

In the past, intellectual‑property discussions centered largely on “protecting innovation outcomes”, with right confirmation and rights‑enforcement as core priorities. The 15th Five‑Year Plan goes beyond mere protection intensity; it frames intellectual property within the broader context of scientific‑technological innovation, industrial development, market pricing and international competition. The plan sets six expected indicators including high‑value invention patents per 10 000 population and the GDP‑share of patent‑intensive industries, attaching greater importance to the real‑world contribution of IP to science‑tech progress and economic growth.

The policy role of intellectual property is evolving from “protecting outcomes” toward “supporting supply”. Instead of merely confirming and protecting rights after innovations are completed, IP considerations are moved forward into major science‑tech missions, key‑core‑technology research and industrial layout.

As experts observe, intellectual property is transforming from a passive “right‑shield” into an active “development engine”. Intellectual‑property assets that cannot be monetized or support industrial development will gradually be marginalized by both policy and the market.

Core Dilemma: Ownership of AI‑Generated Content

Among various AI‑IP topics, ownership of AI‑generated outputs stands out as an urgent challenge.

Under current judicial practice, artificial intelligence itself does not qualify as a legal creative subject. The key test for copyright eligibility lies in whether human‑beings have invested substantial, original intellectual effort. The 15th Five‑Year Plan explicitly proposes exploring rules for ownership of AI‑generated works and for defining rights and obligations among developers, operators and end‑users. The Supreme People’s Court has announced it will formulate normative judicial documents for AI‑related cases and refine adjudication rules for AI‑generated content.

The criterion for judging whether AI outputs deserve protection is shifting away from “whether machines can create” toward substantive review of “whether humans have completed creative work”. Simple prompts that yield direct AI outputs generally cannot be recognized as copyright‑eligible works. By contrast, AI outputs after deep human conception, prompt refinement, screening, adaptation and secondary editing may satisfy prerequisites for protected works.

Institutional Deployment: Two‑way Empowerment Between AI and Intellectual Property

The plan features a special column titled “Two‑way Empowerment Project for Intellectual Property and Artificial Intelligence”. Rui Wenbiao, Deputy Commissioner of the China National Intellectual Property Administration, introduced the goals and tasks of this initiative.

On one hand, it continues institutional innovation for AI‑related intellectual property: improving patent‑examination standards for emerging and future industries such as “AI+”, embodied intelligence and brain‑computer interfaces; guiding the building of AI‑sector patent pools to bring high‑quality patents from laboratories into industrial chains.

On the other hand, it promotes AI‑driven upgrading of intellectual‑property administration: expanding large‑model application scenarios in IP examination, protection and utilization.

During the 15th Five‑Year period, CNIPA will also deepen international cooperation on AI‑related intellectual property and actively participate in shaping relevant international rules, technical standards and governance frameworks.

Development Outlook: Rules Cannot Lag Behind Emerging Reality

Inclusion of AI‑IP provisions in the 15th Five‑Year Plan demonstrates China’s proactive response to institutional challenges brought by technological revolution. Facing new digital‑era contradictions, the plan delivers a clear policy orientation: while encouraging technological innovation, development must proceed under the rule of intellectual‑property law.

The role of intellectual property is undergoing a profound transformation from “protecting outcomes” to “supporting supply”. For enterprises and individuals using AI tools, this institutional change has only just begun. Practical questions such as ownership boundaries for AI‑generated works, compliance of training‑data usage and allocation of infringement liability are steadily moving from theoretical discussion into real‑world practice.