Today, we will talk about some of the legal issues that have recently been consulted on trade secret infringement. The first question is, whether the sale of a product that infringes trade secrets constitutes trade secret infringementRecently, a friend Chen consulted me in a private message in the background, and talked about this problem, he is a seller, taking goods from the factory for resale, and the factory was sued for using other people's trade secrets without permission, so the right holder also listed him as a defendant because Chen has ** this product, so whether Chen has infringed trade secrets?I don't think so, unless there is a conspiracy between Chen and the factory in advance, and the two parties have discussed in advance, and the factory will produce infringing goods according to the technical information illegally obtained, and finally Chen will **, otherwise the sale of this product does not belong to the infringement of trade secrets as stipulated in Article 10 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law.
The second question is whether a technology company is sued for infringing trade secrets by using someone else's software source**, and a design institute purchases this software from this technology company to use. As far as the identity of the subject is concerned, as the end user of the product, the design institute is different from the producer and seller, and it does not purchase the infringing software for use in order to compete with the right holder for transaction opportunities or weaken the market competitiveness of the right holder, and it is not a subject of unauthorized use of other people's trade secretsAs far as the subsequent impact is concerned, the continued use of the allegedly infringing software by a design institute will not affect the expected interests of the right holder. Therefore, there is no need to bear legal liability for infringement of trade secrets.
The third question is that the location of the victim enterprise is not necessarily the place where the infringement occurredWhat does that mean?Company A in place A was infringed by company B in place B, so company A cannot say that I was damaged in place A, and the place where the infringement occurred was in place A, and I have the right to file a lawsuit in place A. With regard to the place where the result of infringement occurs, we should understand that the place where the result of the infringement directly occurs, and we cannot simply assume that the domicile of the right party where the damage is caused is the place where the result of the infringement occurs. Generally speaking, the process of using trade secrets is the process of manufacturing infringing products, and when the infringing products are manufactured, the infringement results of using trade secrets will occur at the same time.
The fourth question is that during his tenure, Zhang San of Company A privately registered Company B, which operated the same business as Company A, whether Zhang San's behavior was legitimateIt should be said that this type of trade secret case is very common, and we can often see that an employee is about to leave the company, ready to go on his own, and will set up a company in his own name, or in the name of someone else, before leaving the company, and pave the way out. When former companies sue employees for infringement of trade secrets, they often use this as an excuse to think that he has subjective malice and that his act of opening a company without permission is not justified. So, is this behavior justified or unjust?This mainly depends on whether Zhang San has signed a non-compete agreement with his old employer, or whether he has stipulated in the signed contract that he shall not operate the same kind of business privately or with his family members. It can be seen that it is not of course improper for an employee to plan the establishment of a new company that competes with the unit to which he or she belongs, and to make appropriate preparations for his or her career after leaving the companyOnly when the relevant act of the employee violates the statutory or agreed non-compete obligation can the act itself be found to be unjustified.
The fifth question, which is also often asked, is whether a non-compete agreement alone constitutes a confidentiality measure as a condition for the protection of trade secretsIt can be said that the confidentiality measures should indicate the subjective desire of the right holder to keep confidential, clarify the scope of information protected by trade secrets, so that the obligor can know the right holder's confidentiality desire and the object of confidentiality, and under normal circumstances, it is sufficient to prevent the leakage of confidential information.
Sixth, many companies like to sue former employees, believing that after leaving the company, the former employee has engaged in work in the same field, formed a competitive relationship with themselves, and swiped away their own market share, so they are quite willing to sue the employee for infringing their trade secrets. In fact, there are many that do not meet the requirements of prosecution, and the knowledge, experience and skills that employees have mastered and accumulated in their work constitute an integral part of their personality, and employees have the freedom to use them independently after leaving their jobsIf an employee uses the knowledge, experience and skills Xi he or she has learned at the original employer to serve other units that compete with the original employer, it cannot be determined that he has infringed the trade secrets of the former company if he has not violated the non-compete obligation and has not infringed the trade secrets.