12 February 2026 — GEN Law Firm is pleased to announce that Steve Zhao, Partner, was invited to speak at the 2026 Harvard China Law Symposium, hosted by the Harvard Law School China Law Association at Harvard Law School (10–12 February 2026).
Convened under the theme “Deals, Disputes, and the Digital Frontier”, the Symposium brought together more than 20 academics, practitioners and industry representatives from China, the United States and Australia to explore developments across cross-border transactions, the globalisation of creative intellectual property, dispute resolution, litigation finance and AI governance.
Steve spoke on the panel “China’s Creative IP Boom: Short-Form Dramas, Games, and Designer IP Going Global”, sharing practical perspectives on the evolving enforcement landscape and strategies for Chinese businesses expanding internationally.
I. From “Administrative Enforcement” to “Private War”: the Legal-Cultural Shock for Chinese Companies Going Global
At the opening of the themed panel, the moderator invited each speaker—drawing on their own practice experience—to identify the most significant “legal-cultural shock” Chinese companies encounter when bringing creative IP into Western markets. Steve began with the structural differences between the U.S. and China’s IP enforcement systems, and offered a vivid observation:
“In China, you can make a phone call. The market supervision authority accepts a complaint on Monday and seals a warehouse on Wednesday—fast, low-cost, and efficient. Then Chinese companies arrive in the U.S., and the entire script collapses: no administrative agency knocking on the door, no surprise inspections—only a long lawsuit.”
Steve further noted that, in China, IP protection has long operated under a dual-track model of ‘administrative + judicial’ enforcement, and many businesses have become accustomed to treating enforcement as a form of “government service”—you report, the government acts. By contrast, in Western systems, IP enforcement is fundamentally a “private war”: the rights holder hires counsel, bears the costs, and carries the risk. In Steve’s view, this institutional gap is not merely procedural inconvenience—it reshapes the entire enforcement mindset for Chinese companies expanding overseas.
To illustrate the difference in practical terms, Steve cited real cost comparisons: in China, a trademark enforcement action may cost approximately RMB 50,000; in the United States, even before a comparable matter reaches trial, fees may already approach USD 500,000. His remarks resonated with the lived experience of many Chinese companies navigating overseas enforcement for the first time.
II. From “Rule Takers” to “Rule Shapers”: the International Influence of China’s Frontier IP Decisions
In the session on frontier litigation and landmark cases, the moderator asked how Chinese courts’ approaches to “new forms of intellectual property” may affect Chinese companies’ overseas litigation strategies. Drawing on years of experience handling representative cases, Steve offered a forward-looking conclusion: Chinese companies are increasingly shifting from global IP rules’ “takers” to “shapers.”
Steve observed that Chinese courts have demonstrated notable openness and innovation in protecting emerging interests—for example: using the Anti-Unfair Competition Law to protect commercial data interests; applying copyright frameworks to protect game rule design—not merely artistic assets and source code, but the gameplay mechanism itself; and developing judicial pathways to protect character image commercialization interests. These developments, he noted, have attracted broad attention internationally.
At the same time, Steve emphasized that the same IP asset often requires “different legal packaging” across jurisdictions. Using game rules as an example, he noted that Chinese courts have affirmed that gameplay mechanisms may receive copyright protection, whereas U.S. courts may be more likely to categorize them as unprotectable “ideas.” “But that doesn’t mean you have no protection at all—it may not qualify as a copyrightable subject matter, but it may be protectable as trade dress; and while your data assets overseas may not fit neatly into any traditional IP category, they can still be protected as trade secrets. The IP asset hasn’t changed—what changes is the legal basis for the claim.”
Steve further highlighted that, when the Beijing Internet Court recognized the copyrightability of certain AI-generated content, the decision became global news. Likewise, as Chinese courts build data-protection frameworks through unfair competition law, scholars and practitioners in other jurisdictions are following closely. “Chinese companies going global today are no longer merely adapting to foreign rules. They can bring something to the negotiating table—they can say to overseas courts: ‘Look, a major jurisdiction has already ruled on this issue.’ It may not be binding, but it can be persuasive, and it has become part of the conversation.”
III. “AI Is the Great Equalizer”: Steve Zhao on the Core Capabilities of Future Lawyers
In the Symposium’s widely attended closing discussion, the moderator invited panelists to share core capability recommendations for Harvard Law students interested in cross-border IP practice. Steve’s answer was direct: AI capability—not simply understanding AI-related legal issues, but using AI as a practical lawyer’s tool.
“Advanced large language models have democratized legal knowledge. The information gap that once separated senior partners from junior lawyers is narrowing rapidly. Anyone who can use these tools well can access knowledge—and even certain forms of experience—that previously took ten years to accumulate.”
Steve broke down AI’s value on two fronts. For senior lawyers, AI should function as “hands and feet”—handling repetitive work such as first drafts, document review, and case summaries—so lawyers can focus on core value: judgment, strategy, and issue-spotting intuition. For junior lawyers, AI can serve as an “experience accelerator”: with disciplined prompting and strong templates, younger lawyers can produce work closer to a ten-year level of refinement.
He offered a cross-border example: a China-qualified lawyer may have strong intuition under Chinese law yet never have studied in the United States—and therefore may not know what they “don’t know.” Historically, testing assumptions required engaging U.S. counsel and waiting days or weeks. “Now you can use AI to run this test in thirty seconds: ‘Here’s the logic under Chinese law—does the same reasoning apply under U.S. law?’ Sometimes the answer is ‘yes.’ Sometimes the answer is ‘absolutely not—if you assume that, you’ll get yourself into serious trouble.’”
Steve also offered a clear caution: “AI cannot replace fundamentals. AI amplifies what the user already has; if the underlying legal reasoning is imprecise, AI can scale that imprecision.”As he told students: “the future belongs to lawyers with strong fundamentals and refined judgment—AI may be a great equalizer, but only if you bring something worth equalizing.”
IV. “Look Downstream; Learn Economics”: a Field to Watch Over the Next Five Years
When asked to predict, apart from AI, which emerging legal field deserves the most attention over the next five years, Steve’s recommendation surprised many students: Law and Economics.
He suggested that many major IP disputes over the coming decade will reflect clashes between legacy business models and new technologies. Rights holders seek to protect existing interests; challengers seek to replace incumbent solutions with more efficient models; judges and regulators are tasked with weighing competing outcomes. “In my experience, the lawyers who win these arguments aren’t the ones who cite the most cases; they’re the ones who can frame the issue in terms of overall social welfare—what outcome maximizes consumer welfare? What outcome promotes innovation without destroying existing markets? That’s law and economics.”
About the 2026 Harvard China Law Symposium
The Harvard China Law Symposium 2026 convened under the theme “Deals, Disputes, and the Digital Frontier: Re-Wiring U.S.-China Law for an Era of Friction and Opportunity.” Held over three days, the Symposium brought together practitioners, in-house counsel and academics to examine five key areas: cross-border technology and life sciences transactions; the globalization of creative IP; U.S.-China cross-border dispute resolution; third-party litigation funding; and AI governance. Speakers travelled to Harvard from Beijing, Shanghai, Hong Kong, Sydney, Silicon Valley, New York and Washington, D.C. The event also drew strong participation from students and faculty across Harvard Law School, Harvard Business School, the Harvard Kennedy School and Harvard College, as well as other Harvard departments.
As part of the programme, Steve Zhao participated in the panel “China’s Creative IP Boom: Short-Form Dramas, Games, and Designer IP Going Global,” alongside Xu Jiansheng (Senior Partner, Shili Law Firm), Hei Hongbo (Overseas Brand General Counsel, miHoYo) and Crystal Mais (General Counsel, Crazy Maple Studio). Bringing together market and regulatory perspectives, the panel discussed the competitive dynamics, compliance considerations and strategic planning underpinning the international expansion of Chinese games, short-form drama content and original designer IP, including approaches to risk management and sustainable global growth.
GEN Website: www.genlaw.com
This publication is provided for general information and discussion purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or a legal opinion of GEN Law Firm. If you would like to discuss any of the topics referenced above, please contact GEN Law Firm.
