What is it about?
This article shows how Chinese courts are turning “data” into something that can be protected using familiar intellectual-property (IP) tools—what terms "数据知识产权" in Chinese policy documents and "Data Intellectual Property Rights (DIPR)" in English. Using close readings of court decisions (including Taobao v. Meijing) and Supreme People’s Court texts, I compare two judicial styles: Zhejiang judges’ “judicial continuation discourse” (extending existing IP rules to data) and the Supreme Court’s “judicial linkage discourse” (aligning court rules with national policy goals). The study explains the core dilemma: how to build fair, clear rules for data that support a unified national market without letting those rules be captured by dominant platforms. To make sense of the push-and-pull, I introduce Bidirectional Conceptual Coupling (BCC)—a simple idea that policy shapes judgments, and judgments feed back to policy. I turned my data-IP research paper into a game! It’s a short, interactive experience where you act as a judge in China's complex digital economy. See if you can navigate the tough legal questions around data rights and platform power. Check it out and let me know what you think! https://alexchlou.github.io/JudgingData/ 秉法立数据知识产权之规，破壁防巨擘平台挟制之弊 2021年《知识产权强国建设纲要（2021－2035年）》和《“十四五”国家知识产权保护和运用规划》提出的“数据知识产权”，是数据产权与知识产权的耦合。从本体论到主体论的反思，数据知识产权由司法主导是可欲的，应从法官话语与法院图景等两个视角考察。就法官话语而言，存在地方法院的法官直白“司法续造话语”与最高法院的法官隐喻“司法衔接话语”。这两种话语分别由内至外、由外至内，展现“双向观念耦合”现象，共同揭示司法主导面临的潜在矛盾：数字经济全国统一大市场的客观标准需求与平台既定利益被客观标准固化风险的矛盾。然而，就法院图景而言，以“淘宝诉美景案”为代表的案例，揭示地方法院组成的“传送带”模式有利于客观标准理论的普遍性，从而控制固化风险。虽然最高法院“权力知识的级别性”由于数据知识产权案件管辖的“审级竭尽”而断裂，但其通过司法解释发挥外部衔接功能，并隐喻地比较行政之矛盾性与司法主导之可欲性。
Featured Image
Photo by Pesce Huang on Unsplash
Why is it important?
What is unique or timely about this work? First, the lens: I use Critical Discourse Analysis to track not just what courts decide, but how their language builds authority and standards over time. Two courts, two roles: I map how Zhejiang courts (Alibaba’s home turf) grow doctrine from the ground up, while the SPC steers from the top down—often via judicial interpretations—so you can see the full system at work, not just isolated rulings. Right now matters: China’s data and competition rules are moving fast (e.g., new unfair-competition provisions on using data/algorithms and platform rules). The paper offers a vocabulary and framework that help make sense of these changes as they land in real disputes. What difference could it make? For practitioners and in-house teams: A clearer map of where courts are likeliest to recognize “data rights,” what arguments travel, and where platform terms/protocols may be treated as anti-competitive. For policymakers and regulators: A way to spot when court-made rules support a unified market—and when they risk sliding into platform-favored “class legislation.” For researchers and students: A portable framework (BCC) to study how policy and adjudication co-produce standards in the data economy, useful beyond China too. 首先，本研究之独特价值与时代意义何在？一是方法论层面：笔者运用批判性话语分析，不仅追踪法院裁决结果，更剖析其如何通过语言建构随时间演进的权威标准与规范。二是双轨司法范式：通过勾勒地方法院自下而上培育法律原则的路径，与最高人民法院借助司法解释等进行顶层引导的互动机制，呈现完整司法体系的运作逻辑，而非孤立看待裁判结果。三是时代紧迫性：中国数据与竞争规则正快速发展（如关于数据/算法使用及平台规则的新型反不正当竞争条款）。本研究提供了一套术语体系与分析框架，助力理解这些变革在具体争议中的落地实践。 其次，本研究之现实意义何在？一是对于从业者与企业法务：明晰法院最可能认可"数据知识产权"的裁判场景、有效论证路径，以及平台条款/协议可能被认定为反不正当竞争行为的风险点。二是对于政策制定与监管机构：提供识别司法规则何时促进统一市场建设、何时存在滑向平台偏袒型"阶级立法"风险的研判方法。三是对于研究者与学子：提供可移植的分析框架（BCC），用于研究政策与司法如何共同塑造数据经济标准，该框架亦具跨国适用性。
Perspectives
This piece grew out of watching courts in China wrestle with real data disputes and realizing that two conversations were happening at once: on the ground, judges in Zhejiang were extending familiar IP tools to new fact patterns; in Beijing, Supreme Court judges were aligning doctrine with wider policy goals. Naming these as the judicial continuation discourse and the judicial linkage discourse helped me describe what I was seeing without turning it into a simple “top-down vs. bottom-up” story. I wrote the paper to give readers a clear map and a shared vocabulary. DIPR can feel abstract; the cases are not. Tracing both discourses—and sketching the Bidirectional Conceptual Coupling (BCC) feedback loop—made the pattern visible: policy shapes judgments, and judgments quietly reshape policy. That, to me, is the interesting part. What I hope this work does: help lawyers frame cleaner arguments about data rights, help regulators spot early signs of platform capture, and help students see that doctrinal change is often incremental and contested, not sudden. On a personal note, writing it made me cautiously optimistic: courts can build rules that support a unified national market and keep those rules from being written by the biggest platforms alone. 观中国法院处置数据知识产权讼争，乃见二轨并行：浙地法官援旧例以断新案，京师法曹循国策以立纲目。余谓前者乃「司法续造」，后者曰「司法衔接」，非可简单以「上下」论之。 作此文者，欲为世人辟一清明图景。数据知识产权之说虽似虚玄，然个案判决凿凿可见。乃描摹此二轨交织之态，显其「政策影响判例，判例潜移政策」之循环机理——此中趣味，正在乎斯。 愿此研究可助律家立论愈明，助监司察平台垄断之端倪，助学子知法理演进非骤变而为渐争。私意以为，法院既能筑规则以利天下通行，亦当防巨鳄窃鼎而私铸律条，斯为可贵。
Chanhou Lou
Read the Original
This page is a summary of: Judging Data: Critical Discourse and the Rise of Data Intellectual Property Rights in Chinese Courts, International Journal of Digital Law and Governance, August 2025, De Gruyter,
DOI: 10.1515/ijdlg-2025-0009.
You can read the full text:
Contributors
The following have contributed to this page
