Trends and Path Optimization of Criminal Protection of Trade Secrets in China

As global technological competition intensifies, trade secrets have become vital strategic assets linked not only to enterprise competitiveness but also to national security. While many developed countries, notably the United States, have elevated trade secret protection to the level of criminal law since the enactment of the Economic Espionage Act of 1996, China's protection system remains predominantly civil in nature. Although civil enforcement has improved through revisions to the Anti-Unfair Competition Law and the Civil Code, the criminal protection of trade secrets in China faces persistent limitations, including unclear evidentiary thresholds, narrow statutory interpretation, and institutional misalignment. This article critically examines the latest 2025 Judicial Interpretation issued jointly by the Supreme People’s Court and the Supreme People’s Procuratorate. The Interpretation clarifies key issues such as the distinction between larceny and electronic intrusion, refines sentencing criteria for “serious” and “especially serious” circumstances, and separates rules for calculating economic loss and illegal gains. Notably, it eliminates ambiguity surrounding the classification of trade secret theft methods and introduces stronger deterrents for repeat offenders and foreign-related infringements. However, the article identifies several unresolved issues that hinder effective criminal protection. These include: (1) the lack of a concrete and operational standard for determining the secrecy (non-publicity) of trade secrets; (2) the absence of a legal foundation for applying the contribution rate in calculating damages; (3) the absence of calculation rules for non-traditional infringement forms, such as negative knowledge and negative use; and (4) jurisdictional inconsistencies between civil and criminal trade secret cases. Through case analysis—such as the landmark Geely v. WM Motor case—the article proposes a structured optimization path: establishing a practicality-based secrecy test, formalizing contribution rate doctrine in criminal law, and consolidating jurisdiction in specialized courts for technical trade secret disputes. These reforms are necessary to ensure the criminal protection regime can support China’s national innovation strategy and safeguard critical technological assets.