Category Archives: Trade Secret

The Shanghai Branch of CIETAC Changed Its Name

Posted on by

Today, we noticed an announcement published on the website of the Shanghai Branch of the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission stating that it has changed its name to the Shanghai International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (the “Shanghai Commission”). At the same time, it will begin to use the name of Shanghai International Arbitration Center. Additionally, starting on May 1, 2013, the Shanghai Commission will begin using new Arbitration Rules and a new arbitrator name list.

READ MORE

Is a Notarization Made under False Pretenses for the Purpose of Evidence Collecting Valid in China?

Posted on by

(By  Luo Yanjie) In a civil lawsuit, the collecting of evidence for the purpose of notarization is quite common. However, during the process of collecting evidence that concerns the selling of infringing goods, the rights holders or their attorneys typically utilize a system of collection in which they set up a “customer” to purchase the infringing product as evidence of infringement. So the question is, should evidence collected in this manner be considered legally effective for the purposes of a lawsuit for infringement or unfair trade practice? For our understanding on the issue, and our experience in this decidedly complicated process, we would like to share with our readers today’s post concerning our opinions on the issue:

READ MORE

How does the U.S. Government Guide Companies Registering IPR in China?

Posted on by

(By You Yunting) This March, at the invitation of the U.S. government, Mr. You Yunting, the founder of Bridge IP Commentary began his journey to the United States. The main purpose of this visit was to better understand the system of intellectual property rights in the United States. Mr. You would like to share with our readers his experiences there in several posts here on our website. Of course, the content of the posts may not be truly comprehensive or strictly accurate; that being said, if you find any mistakes or comments that can be corrected or improved upon, please let us know. We encourage more dialogue with the IPR community and welcome all constructive commentary. The following is the first post in a series of Mr. You’s visit to the United States: 

READ MORE

What Receives Protection as a Trade Secret in China?

Posted on by

By Albert Chen

In an essay posted several days ago, we discussed how infringing another’s trade secret is a kind of unfair competition. Although the Anti Unfair Competition Law contains a definition of trade secret in principle, this definition is not very detailed, and there might still be a fair number of differences between understanding and actual practice. Today’s essay will share the author’s research and analysis on whether Chinese law contains any further regulations on the term “trade secret.”

READ MORE

The Judicial Jurisdiction of Network Infringement in China

Posted on by

By Albert Chen

In the post Could Apple Use Objection to Jurisdiction to Prolong the Litigation Period?, we introduced the objection to jurisdiction Apple submitted to the Beijing Second Intermediate Court after it was sued by the China Writers Alliance over downloads in Apple’s App Store. In China, the infringement or tort cases shall be brought to the court of infringement place or the domicile of the defendant, and the infringement place may include the place where the infringement takes place or the place where the consequences of the infringement are felt. With regard to network infringement, could the place where the consequence of infringement is felt include any computer terminal? Today, we will introduce the relevant system.

READ MORE

Could Apple Use Objection to Jurisdiction to Prolong the Litigation Period?

Posted on by

By Albert Chen

The most watched copyright battle between Chinese Writer Alliance (the “Alliance”) and Apple was heard in Beijing No.2 Intermediate People’s Court on the 11th of this month. You may have read our previous essay on the private hearing of the case, and in fact, Apple has also filed an objection to the jurisdiction in the case. Nonetheless, the application was refused by the intermediate court and upheld by the high court after appeal. The lawsuit has been delayed by procedure for nearly half a year, as favored by Apple. Today, we are going to introduce the regulation on the objection to civil jurisdiction in China.

READ MORE

Has Apple Lost Opportunity of In-Camera Hearing on Its Case?

Posted on by

By Albert Chen

The most watched dispute between Baidu (NASDAQ: BIDU) and Chinese Writers Alliance (the “Alliance”) is heard on 11th of October in Beijing No.2 Intermediate People’s Court. That lawsuit is filed following the battle against Baidu by the Alliance. Before the hearing on 11th, Apple applied to the court for the hearing in camera with the claim that the case is with trade secret related. After the consideration by the court, such an application was refused by the judge, yet it still decided the procedure may switch into be in private when one the interrogation involves the business secret. In today’s post, you may see our analysis on the “lawsuit in camera” in China.

READ MORE

Legal Risk of Unlicensed User Data Disclosure by Internet Companies

By Albert Chen

It has been a chronic social problem that personal information could be released with no license, and that has brought widely seen information harassment, also a threat to the security of personal asset. The Economic Investigation Squad of Shanghai Police Department published a case in recent, in which the crime of illegally selling personal information has been investigated, and there involved more than 200 million pieces of information and thousands of corporate information. In an era of information, the Internet companies have a wide command of personal data compared with normal companies. Therefore, through today’s post, we would like to express our opinions on the risk and risk prevention of the information leakage.

READ MORE

How to Understand “Not Known to the Public” in Trade Secret Cases by China Law?

By Luo Yanjie

Trade secret must be “secret”, a message must be “non-public” for being trade secret. Generally speaking, Information or technique is not generally known for the public and cannot be directly obtained from the open channel. Today we would like to share the topic in China law with readers as follows:

I. The definition of “non-public” in the judicial interpretation

<Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in Hearing Civil Cases Involving Unfair Competition> defines the “non-public” as follows:

READ MORE

How to Define Confidential Measures in Trade Secret Cases?

By Luo Yanjie

Article 10 of China <Law Against Unfair Competition> and Article 219 of <Criminal Law> defines “Trade Secret” as “Trade secret means technical information and operational information which is not known to the public, which is capable of bringing economic benefits to the owner of rights, which has practical applicability and which the owner of rights has taken measures to keep secret.” According to the definition, information must have “confidentiality measures” before it becomes trade secret. While in practice, what measures can be identified as legally effective “confidentiality measures ” has no clear standard. Today we would like to share the topic with readers.

READ MORE

How to Define Losses in Trade Secret Criminal Cases?

Posted on by

By Luo Yanjie

With the rapid economy development in mainland China, we also see an increase of infringements against industrial property right, especially those trade secret cases uncovered by traditional IPR laws. For those trade secret cases we have participated, the most head aching part shall be the crime liability establishment of the trade secret infringement in Chinese laws, for it could only be decided when the right owner suffers the losses of more than 500, 000 yuan. Today, we would like to share our opinions on the conviction of trade secret infringement as follows.

READ MORE

App Store Fraud Applications: Apple Shall Investigate Dereliction of Duty of Its Staffs

Posted on by

By You Yunting

The App Store of Apple is kind of online store to sell applications to mobile terminal users; however, since last year, we have seen the store has been puzzled by the criticism of fraudulence apps in China, which is lasting to now. In my opinion, there’re obviously overall flaws of the examination system of App Store, which shall make Apple be liable to the fraudulence in the store, and therefore a making-up of the flaws and the investigation over the claimed dereliction of duty or the bribery by its staffs is urgently demanded. The following is my analysis:

READ MORE

Different Local Regulations on Compensations and the Effect of Non-competition Agreement

The system of noncompetition is regulated in China Labor Contract Law, “If　a　Employee　has　a　confidentiality　obligation,　the　Employer　may　agree　with　the　Employee　on　competition　restriction　provisions　in　the　employment　contract　or　confidentiality　agreement,　and　stipulate　that　the　Employer　shall　pay　financial　compensation　to　the　Employee　on　a　monthly　basis　during　the　term　of　the　competition　restriction　after　the　termination　or　ending　of　the　employment　contract.” By the article, a financial compensation is demanded for the conclusion of non-competition agreement, while no legal regulation on the effect of such articles when no compensation is paid. Therefore, on the issue, the adjudication or decision made by local courts or labor arbitration committee in China varies much, and today’s post is our analysis on it.

READ MORE

Legal Confusions and Difficulties of Industry and Commerce Department in Trade Secret Investigation

The power to administrative punishment on trade secret is enforced by State Administration of Industry and Commerce (SAIC) and local administrations, and in a recent essay (note: the link is in Chinese) by Shanghai Industry and Commerce Administration on the trade secret investigation and evidence collection, the difficulties and confusion faced by the organ are highlighted. The post today is the digest and our comments hereby made:

 (I) The technology information examination and reverse problem

READ MORE

MOC Issues New Rule for Trade Secret Protection in Commercial Franchise

Recently, the Ministry of Commerce released the revised “Measures for information disclosure of commercial franchising” (the “Measures”) which will come into effect from 1st April. Compared with the past regulation, the most attractive part is the confidentiality responsibility of the franchisee, and the new regulation consists two main parts as follows（the image today is the logo of McDonald’s and Subway, the major franchisors in China）:

1, The franchisee shall not disclose or improper use any trade secret accessed to him/her when negotiating on the agreement, no matter whether the agreement is concluded or not;

READ MORE