On July 23, 2026, Premier Li Qiang of the State Council signed State Council Decree No. 842, publishing the revised "Regulations on the Protection of Integrated Circuit Layout Designs" (hereinafter referred to as the "Regulations"). The Regulations, comprising 6 chapters and 54 articles, will take effect on October 15, 2026. This marks the first systematic revision since the original Regulations were implemented on October 1, 2001, spanning over two decades.
In a Q&A session with journalists, the Ministry of Justice and the National Intellectual Property Administration clarified that this revision mainly involves expanding the scope of protection, improving the application and registration procedures, increasing compensation for infringement, and promoting the utilization of layout designs, among other aspects. Reading between the lines of official interpretations and judicial practice, three clear industry signals can be discerned.
Expanding Protection from "Semiconductor" to "Semiconductor+Photonics+Quantum": Legislation Responds to the Post-Moore Era
The pre-revision Regulations explicitly limited the protected subject matter to semiconductor integrated circuits. The revised version removes the term "semiconductor integrated circuit" from the articles related to the definition of "integrated circuit," bringing layout designs for integrated circuits incorporating functions like photonics and quantum computing within the statutory scope of protection.
The industrial background for this change is: traditional integrated circuit transistor processes are approaching their physical and technological limits, while new technological paths such as photonics and quantum computing continue to emerge. The integrated circuit industry is entering the post-Moore era, where competition is centered on new architectures, mechanisms, materials, and devices.
The subtext of the legislation is: China is no longer a conservative in terms of intellectual property systems. Deleting the three words "semiconductor" may seem like trimming redundancy on the surface, but in essence, it sends a signal to next-generation circuit design enterprises focused on photonic computing, quantum chips, etc.: your layout designs can obtain exclusive rights protection domestically.
This most directly affects two types of enterprises: first, chip design companies engaged in silicon photonics interconnects and co-packaged optics (CPO), whose layout designs previously existed in a legal gray area; second, quantum chip R&D institutions, whose layout designs now have a clear statutory basis for rights.
Originality Declaration System Addresses the Biggest Shortcoming of "Difficulty in Enforcing Rights"
In over 20 years of judicial practice, the difficulty in defining the scope of protection for layout design exclusive rights has consistently been the most vexing problem for rights holders. Supreme People's Court Guiding Case No. 218 (Suzhou SAI vs. Shenzhen YU case) clarified: Obtaining layout design registration does not automatically mean the registered layout design content possesses originality. Rights holders must still provide a reasonable explanation or demonstration of the originality of the layout design for which they claim rights.
The revised Regulations specifically introduce an originality declaration system:
The copy or drawing submitted by the applicant shall contain necessary information about the layout design, capable of clearly displaying the original parts of that layout design.
The originality declaration shall specify the design area, key design points, and their corresponding functions.
The scope of protection of the exclusive right shall be based on the copy or drawing, with the originality declaration used to interpret the original parts.
Simultaneously, the revision improves the rejection and revocation systems, adding a revocation procedure initiated upon a third party's request: Anyone who discovers that a registration does not comply with the provisions may request the State Council's intellectual property administrative department to revoke the layout design registration. A revoked registration's exclusive rights are deemed not to have existed from the outset.
Additionally, a new rights restoration procedure is added, allowing parties to request restoration of their rights if rights are lost due to delays in deadlines caused by force majeure or other legitimate reasons.
The practical significance of these amendments is: in case of infringement disputes, courts can more conveniently conduct infringement comparisons. Both parties in litigation and adjudicators benefit.
Infringement Compensation Shifts from "Make-Whole" to "Punitive": Up to 5 Times for Intentional Infringement
Regarding the protection of exclusive rights, the revision significantly increases the strength: The amount of compensation for infringement is determined based on the actual losses suffered by the rights holder or the benefits gained by the infringer. If it is difficult to determine, compensation may be reasonably determined by reference to a multiple of the licensing fee. For serious circumstances, punitive damages apply, with 1 to 5 times punitive damages applicable for intentional infringement under serious circumstances.
This is a qualitative shift. In the "Jureui Case" (Shanghai's first integrated circuit layout design dispute), Juequan Company claimed 15 million yuan in damages. The final judgment ordered Ruinengwei Company to compensate a total of 3.2 million yuan for economic losses and other costs. Under the old Regulations framework, there was often a huge gap between the cost of infringement and the rights holder's claims.
Under the new Regulations, intentional infringement under serious circumstances will be subject to 1 to 5 times punitive damages. This implies a fundamental change in the logic of calculating infringement costs. The price of copying a layout may no longer be "pay once if caught" but "pay multiples of the licensing fee on an ongoing basis."
In conjunction with the Regulations' explicit requirement for legal entities to provide reasonable rewards and remuneration to eligible creators, the entire system design forms a closed loop of "incentivizing creation - clarifying rights - severely punishing infringement."
Industry Impact: Who Benefits, Who Feels the Pressure
Beneficiaries:
IC design enterprises, especially those involved in silicon photonics, quantum chips, and Chiplet interconnect design, as their exclusive rights foundation is more solid. The 1 to 5 times penalty also provides legal tools for small and medium-sized chip design companies to combat copying by larger firms.
IP suppliers benefit as the originality declaration system makes evidence collection for enforcing IP licensing contracts more straightforward.
Parties Facing Pressure:
Follower-type companies relying on reverse engineering face sharply increased infringement costs, making the old "shortcut" model unsustainable.
Applicants filing fraudulent registrations: The Regulations explicitly stipulate that registration applications must be based on genuine creative activities and must not involve fraud, regulating fraudulent application behavior at the source.
Packaging and testing plants: Although the Supreme Court clarified in case (2022) Zui Gao Fa Zhi Min Zhong No. 565 that packaging enterprises cannot be presumed to know the rights status without evidence, the obligation to pay reasonable fees upon receiving a complaint essentially raises their compliance review responsibilities.
A Question Worthy of Ongoing Observation
The revision of the Regulations addresses the "supply of rules," but the intensity of rule enforcement still needs to be tested in judicial practice after October 15, 2026. The Supreme Court case (2025) Zui Gao Fa Zhi Min Zhong No. 452 has already demonstrated a proactive tendency by courts to examine the basis of rights in layout design infringement litigation. Even for registered layout designs, if the application registration date is more than two years after the date of first commercial exploitation, the court will not provide protection.
This means: The new Regulations' 1 to 5 times punitive damages clause will function in parallel with courts' strict scrutiny of the rights basis, originality, and commercial exploitation timing. For IC design enterprises, exclusive right protection serves as both a shield and a warning. Their own registration timing, the quality of originality declarations, and the preservation of evidence regarding commercial exploitation timing will directly determine the upper limit of compensation in rights enforcement actions.
The Regulations take effect on October 15, 2026, leaving enterprises a time window of approximately 70 days to conduct self-inspections of their IP assets and strengthen registration documentation.
This article is from the WeChat public account: TechSugar , author: Tan Xin
