On 7 September 2026, China’s Supreme People’s Court (SPC) took a significant step in shaping the legal landscape for artificial intelligence by issuing its Opinions of the Supreme People’s Court on the Lawful Adjudication of Disputes Involving Artificial Intelligence (AI) (《最高人民法院关于依法审理涉人工智能纠纷案件的意见》) (the “Opinions”). Spanning 24 articles, the Opinions addresses a broad spectrum of AI-related legal issues—from personality rights, personal information, and intellectual property (IP) to consumer protection, autonomous and assisted driving systems, and AI’s role in judicial proceedings. Below, we examine the key IP provisions specified under Part Three of the Opinions and their implications for businesses.
Key IP Provisions
Allocating Liability for AI-Driven IP Infringement (Article 12) This article establishes a framework for addressing AI-related copyright infringement. Where AI-generated content infringes a third party’s copyright, courts are directed to weigh a multi-factor analysis to allocate liability among developers, providers, and users. Relevant considerations include the type of AI service, industry characteristics, the source of training data, each party’s degree of involvement, the safeguards in place, and profits derived. Parties who use AI to commit infringement, counterfeiting, false advertising, fraudulent transactions, or other acts that violate third-party rights or constitute unfair competition will bear corresponding legal responsibility.
Navigating Liability in the Open-Source Ecosystem (Article 13) This article sets out how courts should allocate liability among open-source developers, providers, and downstream participants. Factors include the licence type, rights restrictions, security compliance, and disclosure practices—with appropriate exemptions available under the law. Notably, contributors who release code modules for free with clear documentation of functions and security risks may avoid infringement liability altogether, offering reassurance for open-source innovation.
Patenting AI-Assisted Inventions (Article 14) This article stipulates that AI-related inventions are patentable if they use technical means to solve technical problems and produce technical effects—subject to public policy limits and provided a natural person makes a substantial contribution. AI-assisted inventions remain attributable to a human inventor where that person has made a substantive creative contribution. An AI-related patent will satisfy the disclosure requirement if a skilled person can realise the invention from the specification.
Breach of Contract in AI Technology Deals (Article 15) This article discusses how courts will resolve disputes arising from AI technology development, transfer, licensing, consulting, and service agreements. In determining liability for breach of contract, courts will consider not only the contractual terms but also the unique characteristics of AI research and development, including whether the technology developer has made reasonable efforts and any other relevant circumstances.
Regulate the use of AI data (Article 16) This article confirms that AI developers may enjoy legal protection for data and datasets acquired or generated through collection, creation, transfer, or licensing. Depending on their nature, such data may be protected under the Copyright Law as compilations, under the Anti-Unfair Competition Law as trade secrets, or through general unfair competition principles. The article also provides that parties may incur liability for anticompetitive conduct involving data or algorithms, as well as for using fabricated or manipulated data, malicious data annotation, or adversarial attacks that compromise the security or operation of AI systems.
For a more detailed commentary and analysis of each Article in the Opinions, please refer to China’s Supreme People’s Court Issues Landmark AI Judicial Guidance – Part 1 and Part 2, articles prepared by Shanghai Pacific Legal. Norton Rose Fulbright and Shanghai Pacific Legal have established a Joint Operation in the China (Shanghai) Pilot Free Trade Zone, which allows the two firms to deliver coordinated and seamless international and domestic law services, where PRC law is involved.
Practical Implications
The Opinions provides useful guidance for businesses across the AI value chain, including AI developers, technology providers, brand owners, copyright holders, and users of AI systems. By clarifying liability allocation, inventorship criteria, and data protection standards, the Opinions helps stakeholders navigate an increasingly complex regulatory environment.
At its core, the Opinions reinforces the need for robust AI governance. Rights holders now have clearer avenues to pursue claims against developers, providers, or users involved in AI-related infringement—strengthening enforcement options where AI-generated content crosses legal boundaries. For their part, AI developers and providers should maintain meticulous records of training data sources, licences, and compliance measures, which may prove critical in defending against infringement claims. Businesses seeking patent protection for AI-assisted inventions will need to document meaningful human contributions to satisfy inventorship requirements. Open-source contributors, meanwhile, can take comfort in the liability exemptions available for properly documented code modules. The takeaway —carefully drafted AI technology agreements and sound data governance practices will be essential to managing contractual, IP, and regulatory exposure.
Recent Comments