The legal protection of intellectual property (IP) rights encompasses three key dimensions: private rights protection, state governance, and international coordination. At its core, IP represents private rights that individuals lawfully enjoy over the outcomes of intellectual endeavors. The subject matter of these rights is specific information produced through intellectual innovation or business operation. Abuses in the operation of this system, such as preemptively acquiring information resources and packaging them as subject matters of IP for profit, should be corrected. Due to the intangibility of information, IP rights protection typically requires first determining the boundaries of the protected subject matter, followed by timely and adequate remedies for rights holders. This necessitates not only specialized, convenient rights confirmation but also fair and efficient enforcement provided by administrative and judicial agencies. The characteristic involvement of public authority based on the principle of “disclosure in exchange for protection” has turned the IP system into a state governance tool. Moreover, IP rights protection is closely tied to international trade, a field governed by numerous international treaties. The progress on the rule of law should not be divorced from domestic practice. Instead, it should adhere to the principle of territoriality, and incorporate the principles of economics, sociology, and other fields to pursue a win-win path for coordinated development between domestic and international rule of law.

The governance of algorithms is a central issue in the progress on the rule of law in an intelligent society. In the field of copyright law, the allocation of infringement liability for algorithmic recommendation service providers should proceed from a systemic perspective rooted in the rule of law spirit of the times. Moving beyond the principle of technological neutrality and toward the principle of digital for good, it requires exploring the key role of online platforms in preventing infringement and fostering the development of digital technologies for good. This calls for the establishment of a legal system that is conducive to the combination of law and technology to support multi-stakeholder co-governance. It is recognized that algorithmic recommendation service providers bear a higher duty of care under specific conditions than that imposed by the notice-and-takedown process. The determination of whether such providers have fulfilled their duty of care should be based on industry-specific technological advancements, taking into account multiple factors such as the infringement damages, the probability of infringement occurrence, the cost of preventing infringement, and the copyright protection measures already taken in their algorithmic recommendation systems. At the same time, mechanisms such as effective notification, an efficient appeal process, and the right to request content restoration should be established to effectively protect the users’ interests.

With the amendments to the Detailed Rules for the Implementation of the Patent Law of the People’s Republic of China and the Guidelines for Patent Examination, China’s patent open license system has been fully implemented. The two-year pilot programs have garnered valuable insights into addressing patent royalty pricing, platform operations, and reduction and exemption in annual fees within the patent open license system. From the perspective of diffusion of innovations theory, innovation attributes serve as a key criterion for evaluating the market value of patent open license. The diversified and dynamic innovation attributes lead patentees to adopt pricing models, either algorithm-based pricing or flexible pricing. Mass media and face-to-face interaction channels function as primary vehicles for innovation diffusion through open license information platforms. Specifically, efficient pairing of supply and demand can be done through novel algorithmic matching mechanisms. Furthermore, user feedback modules and real-life engagement strategies can be integrated to facilitate homogeneous communication, enhancing potential licensees’ recognition of the patent open license system. Innovation adoption theory suggests that public policy incentives for patentees should target early adopters with higher risk tolerance rather than apply universally. This indicates that, in terms of the reduction and exemption in annual fees, a degressive structure achieves greater incentive efficacy in early stages compared to fixed-amount reduction and exemption. In later phases, it enables systematic pruning of valueless of patent open licenses, yielding superior overall cost-benefit outcomes.

Protecting unregistered trademarks is not only necessary but feasible. Although Articles 2 and 6 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law of the People’s Republic of China currently fail to provide effective protection for unregistered trademarks due to systemic deficiencies, its legal subsumption can be enhanced by reforming the application principles of general provisions, scientifically reconstructing the notion of “unfair competition,” and adopting an open legislative approach featuring “defining unfair competition + key illustrative examples.” Meanwhile, by proactively incorporating the concept that unregistered trademarks constitute the property rights of their owners into the trademark law and strengthening regulations against trademark squatting, the application of the anti-unfair competition law can be enhanced to provide more effective damage remedies for unregistered trademark holders. This approach would increase the legal costs of squatting, thereby achieving a dual governance effect of both cracking down on and preventing such practice. By rationally delineating the logical boundaries of anti-unfair competition protection in conjunction with the registration-based acquisition system under the trademark law, this approach scientifically resolves conflicts between the protection of unregistered trademarks and registration validity rules while providing proportionate remedies and respect for the former. Consequently, it achieves an organic unity of necessity and rationality, comprehensiveness and restraint, as well as foresight and pertinence in the protection of unregistered trademarks.

Commercial data and intellectual property (IP) rights cover similar objects, sharing a consistent theoretical foundation and compatible institutional goals. This suggests the IP system is potentially adaptable for protecting commercial data. However, unlike the type-based objects of IP, commercial data demonstrates distinct characteristics in terms of property form, interest appeals, and value connotations. These differences pose difficulties in applying the current IP system to the protection of commercial data, necessitating a new institutional approach. Nevertheless, to improve the legal protection for commercial data, principles from established IP doctrines and regulatory designs can be adapted, including incentivizing property rights, facilitating market circulation, unlocking data’s value as a production factor, and balancing competing interests.