CNIPA, MPS and SAMR Unveil Agency Crackdown Results: 61 Agencies and 22 Patent Attorneys Penalized as 2026 Becomes a Year of Regulatory Normalization

On March 23, China’s National Intellectual Property Administration joined the Ministry of Public Security and the State Administration for Market Regulation at a press briefing to disclose the phased results of a special campaign targeting unlawful conduct in the patent and trademark agency sector. Since November 2025, authorities have focused on seven categories of misconduct, including fabricated applicants, leasing or lending professional qualifications, and improper client solicitation. Within three months, 61 patent and trademark agencies and 22 patent attorneys had been subjected to penalties including business suspension and revocation, while enforcement also extended to online advertising cleanup, platform account controls, and criminal investigation of related cases.

What makes the campaign more significant is that it no longer looks like a narrow enforcement burst aimed at a handful of bad actors. Official figures indicate that self-inspection and rectification covered more than 50,000 agencies; 187 patent agencies and 1,279 branch offices were removed or cleaned up; nearly 10,000 trademark agencies that failed identity verification were restricted from handling business; and 1.736 million abnormal patent e-filing accounts were cleared. For corporate IP teams, agencies, and platform operators, the key 2026 question is no longer whether scrutiny will continue, but how compliance, personnel control, account governance, and client-acquisition models will be redefined.

1. Why this crackdown has structural significance

The importance of the campaign lies not only in the number of penalties, but in the fact that it shifts IP agency regulation from downstream correction to upstream control. In the past, market attention often centered on end-result problems such as abnormal patent filings or bad-faith trademark applications. This time, regulators moved the focal point forward to the agency chain itself, targeting qualifications, practice models, marketing, account control, and the authenticity of filing materials. That suggests policymakers increasingly view the agency layer as a core determinant of filing quality and market order.

The joint involvement of CNIPA, the Ministry of Public Security, and SAMR also signals a tighter enforcement loop among administrative regulation, platform governance, and criminal enforcement. Fabricated applicants, identity misuse, qualification leasing, and false representations used to obtain subsidies are not merely technical compliance defects. They may affect filing authenticity, market order, public funds, and broader credit governance. For the sector, this looks less like a temporary storm and more like a rewrite of operating assumptions.

2. What the disclosed numbers reveal about the new enforcement model

The headline penalties against 61 agencies and 22 patent attorneys are the most visible message. But when viewed together with the deletion of more than 100,000 illegal advertisements, the closure of over 2,200 accounts, the cleanup of 187 patent agencies and 1,279 branch offices, and the removal of 1.736 million abnormal e-filing accounts, a broader pattern emerges. Enforcement is no longer limited to case-by-case punishment. It is evolving into a combined model of digital-entry control, entity identity governance, and traffic-platform regulation.

Especially important is the explicit focus on preventing regulated actors from reappearing through substitute identities or shell structures, and on restricting business handling by trademark agencies that failed identity verification. This suggests that future governance may increasingly rely on filing access controls, registration and recordal management, branch-office scrutiny, account-permission limits, and identity verification rules to keep non-compliant actors outside the system from the outset. For agencies that depend heavily on branch networks, outsourced workflows, or online lead generation, the real challenge may not be any single case, but whether their business architecture can withstand sustained look-through review.

3. Practical impact on agencies and corporate IP teams

For agencies, compliance obligations are expanding from formal qualification status to the entire operating chain. High-risk areas may include nominally registered attorneys lending credentials, filing through unqualified intermediaries, exaggerated marketing, ultra-low-price client acquisition, subsidy-driven solicitation, and promises framed around guaranteed authorization or outcome-based selling. The relevant compliance question is no longer whether licenses are in place, but whether branch governance, outsourcing, client onboarding, account permissions, advertising claims, and internal accountability are all robust enough to survive regulatory scrutiny.

For corporate IP teams, the campaign raises the bar for choosing and supervising external counsel or agency partners. Price and turnaround time are no longer sufficient benchmarks. Companies increasingly need to verify whether the agency entity is legitimate, whether responsible personnel are properly qualified, whether filing accounts and authorization chains are clearly controlled, whether online marketing materials are potentially misleading, and whether the agency has any history of abnormal account activity or regulatory issues. For high-volume filers, centralized control of e-filing accounts, reduced account sharing, and stronger approval trails for agency authorizations are quickly becoming risk-control basics rather than optional management upgrades.

4. What to watch in the 2026 “year of rectification and normalization”

Authorities have already indicated that 2026 will continue as a year of “rectification and normalization” for the IP agency sector. That implies a likely shift from campaign-style concentration to more regularized governance. Key issues to watch include whether entry and recordal rules tighten further, whether platforms assume greater responsibility for agency marketing and lead generation, whether administrative and criminal case coordination becomes smoother, and whether real-name verification and abnormal-behavior detection mechanisms deepen.

Over the longer term, the campaign may not weaken the agency industry so much as force a clearer separation between compliant professional service providers and gray-market low-cost channels. The business models most exposed are likely not ordinary agency practices, but those built around credential leasing, misleading traffic acquisition, abnormal accounts, or procedural arbitrage. For clients, compliance costs may rise in the short run. But if the result is better filing quality, clearer accountability, and a more transparent market, China’s IP agency landscape after 2026 could become more predictable and more suitable for durable professional partnerships.