Every brief.
The full run, most recent first.
- § 31 · JUDICIAL
Datatang v. Yinmu — China's First Ruling on a Data-IP Registration Certificate, and Why Open-Sourced Data Is Still Protected
A consolidated case study of 数据堂诉隐木科技 (Datatang v. Yinmu) — the Beijing IP Court's June 2024 appeal ruling, widely called China's first case on the evidentiary effect of a data-IP registration certificate. The dispute: Datatang built voice datasets for AI training, open-sourced some under a license; Yinmu took and redistributed them in the same data-services market. DCC synthesizes four commentaries (the case report, a Tsinghua analysis, and two Shenzhen Data Exchange DEXC+ deep-dives) into the four holdings that matter for overseas counsel: (1) a data-IP registration certificate is prima facie evidence of property-type interests and lawful sourcing — but not an absolute property right (property-rights-statutism); (2) open-sourced data, though neither trade secret nor copyrightable compilation, is protectable under the Anti-Unfair Competition Law's general clause; (3) the protection hierarchy (compilation work → trade secret → AUCL Art. 2); and (4) whether the taker honored the open-source license is the hinge for 'improper conduct.'
- § 32 · ANONYMIZATION
Reviving a Zombie Provision — Xu Ke's Concentric-Circle Reconstruction of the Anonymization Regime
Xu Ke (UIBE) calls PIPL Article 4's anonymization carve-out a 'zombie provision' (僵尸法条) — on the books, never used, and one of the biggest blockages in the data-element market. His diagnosis: the zombie state is caused not by the text but by three unaddressed worries (processors fear the standard is unattainable or value-destroying; regulators fear anonymization becomes an evasion tool; users fear it's a hollow promise). His cure is a concentric-circle architecture that maps three risk types (systemic / operational / residual) onto three layers of anonymity (presumptive / determined / trust). This is the most complete academic blueprint yet for making the anonymization clause operational — and it pairs directly with TRIMPS's risk-based, recipient-relative reading.
- § 33 · DATA-PROPERTY-RIGHTS
The 'Rights Block' — Xu Ke's Structural Theory Behind China's Data-Property Framework
Xu Ke's highly-cited (255×) 政法论坛 article on the structure of data rights — the theoretical scaffolding that the Data 20 Articles' three-rights framework rests on. He maps the field's two warring paradigms (formalist 'empowerment' vs substantivist 'conduct regulation'), argues both fail alone, and integrates them via a 'reflexive law' approach. The payoff is a taxonomy of three possible rights structures — rights-ball, rights-bundle, rights-block — and the case that the 'data rights block' (数据权利块) best fits data's 'one principle, many manifestations' character. For overseas counsel, this is the conceptual map that explains why Chinese data rights are structured the way they are — and why Western property and IP analogies keep failing.
- § 34 · DATA-ASSET
When Does Data Become an Asset? Xu Ke on Identifying and Defining Data Assets
Xu Ke (UIBE), writing for a practitioner audience, draws the line between data resource (国家视角, public/strategic) and data asset (市场主体视角, commercial), then between the broad sense (anything that creates value for the enterprise) and the narrow sense (meets the MOF accounting-standard test for on-balance-sheet recognition — owned/controlled, generates economic benefit, reliably measurable). He works the three-rights framework into operational boundaries by data type (personal / enterprise / government) and flags the practical questions overseas counsel face when a Chinese counterparty wants to put data on its balance sheet.
- § 35 · ANONYMIZATION
From 'Cannot Be Restored' to 'Difficult to Restore' — TRIMPS on Whether Anonymization Is Absolute, and Whether It's Recipient-Relative
The Third Research Institute of the Ministry of Public Security (TRIMPS) — the body behind China's classified-protection regime and national eID platform — takes on the two questions that determine whether anonymization actually gets data out of PIPL scope. First: does PIPL's 'cannot be restored' standard (Art 73) require re-identification probability of literally zero? The 2025 draft PI Anonymization Guide quietly softened it to 'difficult to restore,' aligning China with the GDPR 'all reasonable means' test and reframing anonymization as a dynamic, continuously-assessed, risk-based process rather than a one-time terminal state. Second: is anonymization recipient-relative — can the same dataset be PI in one party's hands and anonymized in another's? TRIMPS reads the EU SRB v EDPS case and UK ICO guidance toward 'yes,' with major implications for how overseas counsel structure data sharing and cross-border transfer.
- § 36 · AI-GOVERNANCE
Zhu Xiaofeng — Who Pays When GenAI Causation Is Unclear? Applying Civil Code Article 1254 by Analogy
Zhu Xiaofeng (Central University of Finance and Economics Law School) takes on the GenAI causation black hole — when a personal-information harm clearly arises from a GenAI service but specific causation among model designer, model provider, model user, and data provider cannot be established, who pays? Zhu's structural answer: when conventional construction-element-analysis and Article 998 interest-balancing both fail (and they do), apply Civil Code Article 1254's 'unclear-causation' rule by analogy — the same rule used for falling-object-from-building cases. The doctrinal scaffolding: communication-safety theory, gain-and-risk allocation theory, causation proof + harm prevention. Critically: each potential injurer compensates the full damage; among themselves, allocation is proportional, with judges determining specific amounts case-by-case. Highly relevant for multinationals deploying GenAI in China — the proposed framework restructures the operating liability surface.