The Supreme Court clarified the rules for handling AI-related intellectual property dispute cases, with experts providing detailed explanations.
On September 7, 2026, the Supreme People’s Court issued the first document on judicial rules related to artificial intelligence, consisting of 5 parts and 24 articles.
On September 7, 2026, the Supreme People’s Court issued the “Opinions on Judicating Cases Involving Artificial Intelligence in accordance with the Law”. This is the first judicial ruling document on artificial intelligence issued by the country’s highest judicial body. The opinions consist of 5 parts and 24 articles, aiming to address the challenges posed by AI to existing laws and provide clear legal bases for related disputes. The document clarifies the rules for determining liability in cases of infringement by AI-generated content, the standards for patent authorization and confirmation in AI-related inventions, and sets conditions for exemption from liability for open-source software developers. Additionally, the opinions stipulate that using AI to generate recognizable virtual images or voices without consent constitutes an infringement of personal rights. They also include “network unpacking” within the scope of privacy rights infringement regulations and make corresponding provisions for new types of disputes such as autonomous vehicle accidents and algorithmic discrimination. As there is still no consensus on whether AI-generated content qualifies as works under copyright law and whether using others’ work to train large models constitutes infringement, the opinions do not provide specific regulations at this time; further clarification will be provided after accumulating experience.
Chinese Academy of Sciences Institute for Science and Technology Strategy ConsultingFirst FinancialSupreme People's CourtXiao You Dan
Event frameEVENT FRAME
Regulation
最高人民法院→ 涉人工智能纠纷案件发布首部司法裁判规则文件
Status
On September 7, 2026, the Supreme People’s Court issued the first document on judicial rules related to artificial intelligence, consisting of 5 parts and 24 articles.
Coverage · reports per dayLANGUAGE SPLIT
Entity relations
Integrated timelineUNIFIED TIMELINE
2026-09-07
The Supreme People’s Court issued judicial rules on AI-related disputes
The Supreme People’s Court issued “Opinions on Handling Disputes Related to Artificial Intelligence in accordance with the Law”. This is the first document on judicial rules related to artificial intelligence issued by the country’s highest judicial authority. The opinion consists of 5 parts and 24 articles, aiming to address the challenges posed by AI to existing laws and provide clear grounds for resolving related disputes.
3 reports
SignalsSIGNALS
Keyword heat
Supreme People's Court3
Chinese Academy of Sciences Institute for Science and Technology Strategy Consulting1
On September 7, the Supreme People’s Court issued the first judicial ruling document on artificial intelligence, titled “Opinions on Handling Disputes Involving Artificial Intelligence in accordance with the Law”. This document clarifies the legal responsibilities for activities such as AI face swapping and online “box opening”. The document consists of 5 parts and 24 articles, focusing on infringement, intellectual property rights, and consumer rights protection. It stipulates that using AI to generate recognizable virtual images or voices without consent constitutes an infringement of personal rights; “online box opening” is included in the scope of privacy infringement regulations. Appropriate provisions are also made for new types of disputes such as autonomous vehicle accidents and algorithmic discrimination. The document emphasizes that both technology developers and users must bear responsibility, and applies the “Port of Safety Rule” to clarify that service providers who fail to take necessary measures promptly after being notified shall bear tort liability.
最高人民法院于 9 月 7 日发布《关于依法审理涉人工智能纠纷案件的意见》,对涉 AI 知识产权纠纷作出系统规定。该文件明确了 AI 生成内容侵权的责任认定规则、涉 AI 发明创造的专利授权确权标准,并针对开源软件开发者设定了责任豁免条件。对于 AI 生成内容是否属于著作权法意义上的作品以及使用他人作品训练大模型是否构成侵权等尚无共识的问题,《意见》暂未作规定,待积累经验后进一步明确。