Introduction

In the era of new quality productive forces development, trade secrets as core intangible assets receive strengthening judicial protection. In 2025, the Supreme People’s Court IP Tribunal concluded 51 trade secret cases, significantly increasing infringement damages through typical case decisions. This article analyzes seven core judicial protection trends.

I. Expanding Protection Scope: From Individual Secrets to Systematic Protection

Traditional judicial protection focused on individual technical information points. Current practice shows clear systematic protection tendencies.

1. Holistic Protection Principle

Courts reject arguments that fragmented combinations can negate secrecy. In Case (2023) SPC IP Civil Final 2913 (“Natural Proteinase 3”), the Supreme Court held that even if part of technical information was publicly known, the overall technical scheme’s secrecy must be considered. Individual disclosures cannot be拼接 to negate the non-public nature of an integrated technical solution.

In Case (2023) SPC IP Civil Final 2039 (“Glass Machine”), the court protected 37,340 technical drawings as a complete technical information database, breaking the traditional “individual point-by-point appraisal” model.

2. “Carrier-Center Doctrine”

Courts reasonably delineate protection scope based on carriers. In Case (2023) SPC IP Civil Final 2467 (“Quartz Glass Fiber”), the court required that claimed technical secrets be supported by carriers. The court limited protection to specific values recorded in carriers where claimed ranges could not be derived from carriers, preventing over-expansion of protection boundaries.

II. Precise Infringement Determination: Identifying Joint Tort Forms

Current infringement exhibits “organized, covert, chain-like” characteristics. Courts increasingly identify multi-party joint infringement, piercing corporate veils, and tracing liability through entire infringement chains.

1. Multiple Forms of Joint Infringement

Direct infringement, inducement infringement, and assistance infringement are all subject to liability. In Case (2023) SPC IP Civil Final 1228, different defendants occupied different positions in the infringement chain—刘某某 induced former employees to disclose secrets, 上某公司 used the secrets, and 木某公司 provided assistance—构成共同侵权 (joint tort) with joint liability.

2. Piercing Corporate Veil

In Case (2023) SPC IP Civil Final 2467, the court found 光电科技公司 was a “tool company” established by 陈某某 and 肖某某 for infringement, piercing the corporate veil to impose joint liability on the individuals.

3. “Group Poaching + Technology Misappropriation”

Multiple former employees established new companies using technology secrets from their former employer. Courts find joint infringement based on shared intent, with differentiated liability based on each party’s role.

III. Optimized Burden of Proof

Courts actively apply burden of proof shifting rules and sanction evidence obstruction. Under Article 32 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law, once the rights holder completes prima facie evidence, the burden shifts to the alleged infringer.

In Case (2023) SPC IP Civil Final 1503 (AI/algorithm case), the court held that once the rights holder demonstrated legitimate ownership, opportunity to access, and substantial similarity, the burden shifted to the defendant to prove legitimate source. The defendant failed to demonstrate reasonableness of open-source code integration, resulting in infringement findings.

Courts also sanction evidence obstruction. In Case (2023) SPC IP Civil Final 2039, the defendant refused to provide complete production drawings, claiming destruction. The court applied the “argument from minor to major” principle, presuming all related products used the trade secret.