The announcement by China’s National Intellectual Property Administration can be seen as a renewed indication that intellectual property is no longer treated merely as a system for protecting rights, but as something embedded at the core of industrial policy and economic growth. What deserves attention in these latest figures is not simply the sheer volume of patent applications or registrations. Rather, it is the fact that an entire chain has become visible: how patents are commercialized, how much added value they generate as part of industry, and how they are even leading to technology exports overseas.
The Policy Intent Reflected in Support for SMEs
The fact that more than 3,000 “SMEs serving as models for patent industrialization” have been cultivated cumulatively since the launch of the special action plan to promote patent commercialization in 2023 is highly symbolic. It shows that the focus of intellectual property policy is not limited to protecting the R&D成果 of large corporations, but is also clearly directed toward supporting the growth of small and medium-sized enterprises.
What is particularly important is the explanation that these firms “draw their growth from hard technology” and that “SMEs holding strong patents are growing one after another.” This suggests an intention not merely to compete in terms of the number of patents held, but to strengthen industrial competitiveness by building up a broad base of companies capable of implementing technology in practice. The fact that intellectual property is being linked with finance, investment, and manufacturing, and operated as a policy tool to support the scale-up of startups and SMEs, is highly strategic.
What the Figure of 18 Trillion Yuan Really Means
The announcement that the added value of patent-intensive industries in 2024 exceeded 18 trillion yuan and rose to 13.38% of GDP indicates that intellectual property is no longer on the periphery of the economy, but has already entered a major core domain. What should be noted here is not simply that “there are patents,” but that “industries built on patents are generating high added value.”
This means that intellectual property policy is not confined to the development of legal systems, but is linked directly to the upgrading of industrial structure itself. Patents tend to be understood primarily as exclusive rights, but in reality they also serve as a foundation for recovering R&D investment, escaping pure price competition, and enabling companies to move toward higher added value. This announcement appears to show that China is quite clearly conscious of that point.
Growth in Technology Exports Signals Quality, Not Just Quantity
Another point that should not be overlooked is that the total value of intellectual property royalty imports and exports in 2025 increased by 6.7% year-on-year, with exports in particular rising by 26.3%. The especially strong growth in exports suggests that technologies and intellectual property generated within China are reaching a stage where they can earn compensation in overseas markets.
What matters here is that value is being transferred not through exports of physical goods, but in the form of IP royalties. This is an area that is difficult to reach through strength as a manufacturing base alone; it is a field in which the international competitiveness of intangible assets such as technology, brands, standards, and know-how is tested. If export growth is genuinely accelerating, then China is moving further from being merely “a country that makes things” to becoming “a country that earns through technology.”
Should These Numbers Be Praised at Face Value?
That said, it would be insufficient to accept such figures at face value. The substance of policy-driven model firms, the definition of patent-intensive industries, and the content of royalty balances all need to be examined carefully. Even if the numbers or monetary amounts appear large, their significance will differ depending on how much of the outcome reflects success evaluated through market competition, and how much depends heavily on policy support.
Moreover, a quantitative expansion in patents does not automatically mean a qualitative improvement in innovation. Going forward, it will become even more important to ask to what extent patented technologies are generating sustained revenue, and how difficult they are to substitute in international markets. This announcement is certainly positive in tone, but its true value should be measured in terms of its long-term sustainability.
Implications for Japanese Companies and Japanese IP Practice
This news is not simply a story about China’s growth. It also carries major implications for Japanese companies and for Japanese intellectual property practice. Patents are still often treated primarily as something to file and protect, but in essence they are also something to commercialize and monetize. This is especially true for SMEs: even if they hold patents, the economic significance remains limited unless those patents can be connected to business strategy, fundraising, partnerships, and overseas expansion.
China’s latest announcement shows how policy, industry, finance, and international expansion can interact when intellectual property is placed at the center of management. In Japan as well, there may be a need to shift the evaluation axis of intellectual property more clearly from “number of registrations” to “implementation,” “monetization,” “licensing,” and “market power.”
Conclusion
The essence of this news lies in the fact that China is treating patents not as “a legal matter,” but as “an instrument of growth strategy.” The cultivation of SMEs, the expansion of patent-intensive industries, and the growth of IP royalty exports may look like separate figures, but in reality they all point in a single direction. That direction is a model in which intellectual property does not end with the acquisition of rights, but is industrialized, turned into added value, and ultimately converted into an international source of revenue.
The value of intellectual property is determined not by the number of rights held, but by how effectively it functions within the economy. Seen in that light, this announcement should be read not simply as an appeal of strong performance, but as a signal that China’s intellectual property policy has entered its next stage.