26 August 2026

It has been a particularly busy year for intellectual property law reform in Kenya. Within a matter of months, stakeholders have participated in public consultations on three significant legislative proposals that collectively signal the Government’s intention to modernise Kenya’s intellectual property framework and align it with evolving technological, commercial and international developments.

In March 2026, the Copyright and Related Rights Bill, 2026 was published for public participation. The Bill proposes extensive reforms to Kenya’s copyright regime, including measures aimed at strengthening the protection of authors and performers in the digital environment, modernising the regulation of collective management organisations, improving enforcement against online infringement, enhancing access to copyrighted works for persons with disabilities, and addressing emerging technological developments. Public participation closed on 31 March 2026.

In April 2026, the Geographical Indications Bill, 2026 was also released for public participation. The proposed legislation seeks to establish Kenya’s first comprehensive legal framework dedicated to the protection of geographical indications, providing for the registration and protection of products whose quality, reputation or other characteristics are intrinsically linked to their geographical origin. The Bill is intended to promote rural development, preserve Kenya’s cultural heritage and improve the competitiveness of Kenyan products in regional and international markets.

The latest and perhaps most far-reaching development is the Kenya Intellectual Property Bill, 2026 (“IP Bill”), which is currently before the National Assembly. Unlike the two earlier Bills, which address specific categories of intellectual property, the IP Bill proposes a fundamental restructuring of Kenya’s institutional intellectual property framework. If enacted, it would represent one of the most significant reforms of Kenya’s IP administration in decades, consolidating several existing intellectual property laws under a single legislative framework and establishing a unified intellectual property authority.

A Single Authority for Intellectual Property

The IP Bill proposes the establishment of the Kenya Intellectual Property Authority (KIPA), which would assume the functions currently performed by the Kenya Industrial Property Institute (KIPI), the Kenya Copyright Board (KECOBO) and the Anti-Counterfeit Authority (ACA).

Once established, KIPA would administer patents, utility models, industrial designs, trade marks, copyright and related rights, while also overseeing anti-counterfeiting enforcement under a single regulatory framework.

The proposed merger is intended to create a more integrated intellectual property administration by streamlining administrative processes, reducing institutional duplication and strengthening coordination across Kenya’s IP ecosystem.

This is not the first attempt to modernise Kenya’s intellectual property framework. Previous legislative proposals seeking to consolidate and strengthen the country’s IP regime have been introduced over the years but were ultimately not enacted. The current Bill, however, forms part of the Government’s broader programme of rationalising state corporations while strengthening the protection, commercialisation and enforcement of intellectual property rights.

 Key Proposed Reforms

Among the notable reforms introduced by the IP Bill are:

• the consolidation of the Industrial Property Act, Copyright Act and Anti-Counterfeit Act into a single legislative framework;
• the establishment of a unified Intellectual Property Tribunal to hear intellectual property disputes and appeals;
• the retention and administration of the existing IP Recordation System for imported goods as part of broader anti-counterfeiting measures;
• enhanced protection for copyright, genetic resources, traditional knowledge and traditional cultural expressions;
• provisions addressing AI-assisted and AI-generated inventions; and
• strengthened civil and criminal enforcement mechanisms against piracy and counterfeit goods.

Importantly, the Bill provides that the Trade Marks Act will remain in force and continue to govern trade mark registration and protection, although its administration will be transferred to KIPA. Similarly, once enacted, the proposed Geographical Indications legislation is expected to be administered by the new Authority.

The IP Bill and the National IP Policy

The legislative reforms are taking place alongside the development of the Draft National Intellectual Property Policy and Strategy (NIPPS). The policy seeks to strengthen Kenya’s innovation ecosystem by encouraging the creation, protection, commercialisation and effective utilisation of intellectual property. It also seeks to support innovators, creators, universities, research institutions and businesses while positioning IP as a catalyst for economic growth, competitiveness and sustainable development.

The simultaneous development of the IP Bill and the NIPPS is significant. The two processes are intended to contribute to the same broader objective of strengthening Kenya’s IP ecosystem, but they have proceeded through different tracks. This raises an important question as to how the final policy framework will interact with the institutional and legislative framework ultimately established by Parliament.

The issue is particularly relevant because the proposed institutional structure under the IP Bill would fundamentally alter the landscape upon which aspects of the policy formulation process have been undertaken. If the IP Bill is enacted before the NIPPS is finalised, the policy may need to take account of the new institutional structure and adjust recommendations that are premised on the continued independent operation of KIPI, KECOBO and the ACA.

Conversely, if the policy process informs amendments to the Bill before enactment, the NIPPS could provide a broader strategic framework against which the proposed institutional reforms can be assessed.

This interaction between the legislative and policy processes will therefore be important to watch as Kenya’s IP reform agenda progresses.

What Do These Reforms Mean in Practice?

Although many of the IP Bill’s provisions relate to institutional restructuring, the proposed reforms are likely to have practical implications for businesses, innovators and intellectual property rights holders.

Perhaps the most immediate potential benefit would be the creation of a single point of interaction for intellectual property administration. Rather than engaging with multiple agencies depending on the nature of the intellectual property right or enforcement issue, rights holders would interact with a single authority responsible for the administration and enforcement of industrial property, copyright and anti-counterfeiting matters.

If effectively implemented, this could simplify administrative processes, reduce institutional duplication and promote greater coordination across the intellectual property ecosystem.

For businesses with valuable intellectual property portfolios, however, the transition to a new institutional framework will require careful monitoring. As KIPI, KECOBO and the ACA are integrated into a single authority, rights holders should anticipate a transitional period during which administrative procedures, filing practices and operational processes may evolve. Businesses should therefore remain alert to the implementation timelines, transitional arrangements, regulations and administrative guidance that may follow.

The Bill is also noteworthy for recognising the growing influence of artificial intelligence on innovation. Its provisions addressing AI-assisted and AI-generated inventions reflect an attempt to ensure that Kenya’s IP framework remains responsive to emerging technologies. The practical application of these provisions will, however, likely require further clarification through subsidiary legislation, regulations and judicial interpretation.

More broadly, the reforms raise important questions about whether institutional consolidation, on its own, will address the operational challenges currently experienced within Kenya’s IP system. A unified authority may offer opportunities for greater coordination and efficiency, but its effectiveness will ultimately depend on adequate resourcing, appropriate institutional structures, digital infrastructure, specialised expertise and effective implementation.

Stakeholder Perspectives

As with any significant institutional reform, the proposed merger has generated different views among stakeholders.

There is a view that bringing KIPI, KECOBO and the ACA under a single authority may not address the underlying institutional and operational challenges facing the IP ecosystem. From this perspective, issues such as resourcing, digitalisation, enforcement capacity and administrative efficiency may require targeted reforms irrespective of the institutional structure ultimately adopted.

At the same time, there is a clear indication that the Government is keen to advance the proposed reforms as part of its broader programme of rationalising state corporations and modernising public administration. The IP Bill should therefore be viewed within this wider policy context, while recognising that the legislative process may result in amendments to the current proposals.

The outcome of the reforms will ultimately depend not only on the decision to consolidate the institutions, but on how the new framework is designed and implemented and whether it responds effectively to the practical needs of Kenya’s IP community.

Our View

If enacted, the IP Bill would represent one of the most significant institutional reforms of Kenya’s intellectual property landscape in decades. Its significance extends beyond the proposed merger of three institutions. The Bill, the proposed Geographical Indications legislation, the Copyright and Related Rights Bill and the NIPPS collectively point towards a broader effort to rethink how intellectual property is protected, administered, commercialised and enforced in Kenya.

For businesses, innovators, creators and rights holders, this period of reform presents both opportunities and uncertainties. A more integrated IP administration could potentially improve coordination and simplify engagement with the Government. At the same time, the transition to a new institutional framework will require careful management to ensure continuity of existing rights, registrations, applications and enforcement proceedings.

The relationship between the IP Bill and the NIPPS will also be particularly important. A national IP policy should ideally provide the strategic direction within which the legislative and institutional framework operates. Ensuring that the two processes ultimately complement rather than contradict one another will be important to the long-term success of Kenya’s IP reform agenda.

Public participation on the three Bills and the NIPPS has now concluded, marking an important milestone in the reform process. Attention now shifts to the next stages of the legislative and policy processes, including Parliament’s consideration of the IP Bill and the finalisation of the national IP policy.

Whether the IP Bill is enacted in its current form or undergoes further amendment, Kenya’s intellectual property framework is entering a period of significant change. Businesses, innovators, creators and rights holders should therefore monitor these developments closely and consider the potential implications for their IP protection, enforcement and commercialisation strategies.

We are closely monitoring the progress of the Intellectual Property Bill, 2026 and the broader package of intellectual property reforms currently under consideration. We will continue to provide updates as the legislative and policy processes unfold and share insights on significant developments and amendments.