(By You Yunting and Wang Ting) Pursuant to China’s Company Law, any shareholder shall be entitled to inspect and copy the Articles of association, minutes of shareholders’ meetings, resolutions of meetings of the board of directors, resolutions of meetings of the board of supervisors and financial reports of a company in which he or she owns shares. However, if a shareholder operates a business in competition with a company in which he or she owns stocks, then when exercising the shareholder’s right to information, such inspection may result in leaks of confidential business and trade secrets. In today’s post, we will introduce this conflict, and discuss ways in accordance with relevant Chinese laws to balance this conflict of interests while maintaining a shareholder’s right to information and a business’ right to protect its trade secrets.
(By You Yunting) According to media reports (note: the link is in Chinese), Eli Lilly and Company and Eli Lilly (China) sued an employee named Huang in the Shanghai No.1 Intermediate People’s Court. That court recently issued the first trade secret litigation injunction in China’s history, and ruled a litigation preservation that prohibited Huang from disclosing, using, or allowing any third party to use 21 documents that were protected as trade secrets by the plaintiff.
Inductions to the Case:
Day three of the visit to the United States
(By You Yunting) Beginning at the end of this March, on the invitation of the US government, I visited America with the goal of understanding its IPR system. On my third day in the US, I visited the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (“PhRMA”), the United States-China Business Council (“USCBC”), the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”), and the East Asia Bureau of the US Department of State. The following is the brief record of my meetings on that day.
Matters for Attention in the Trade Secret Lawsuit in China (I)
Recently, a judge from Shanghai No.2 Intermediate People’s Court published an article(Note: the article is in Chinese) Trial Experiences in Trade secret Infringement Cases (the article), and the following is the abstraction of the article and the comments and analysis from Bridge IP Law Commentary. And the essay will be posted in several articles, and today is the first one of the evidence preservation in trade secret lawsuit.
The Article 74 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China (“Civil Procedure Law”) stipulates that under circumstances where there is a likelihood that evidence may be destroyed or lost, or difficult to obtain later, the parties concerned in the proceedings and agent ad litem may apply to the people’s courts for evidence preservation. The people’s courts may also on its own initiative take measures to preserve such evidence. In practice, the plaintiff of the trade secret infringement case tend to apply for evidence preservation on filing the lawsuit in order to collect the evidences proving the defendant’s infringement by the courts with the reference to Article 74.
On 20th December, Mr. Steven Duke （杜史文）, Vice Consul of U.S.A, visited DeBund Law Offices/Bridge IP Law Commentary for the survey on the IPR protection in China.
On the meeting with the Consul, Mr. You Yunting introduced the IPR protection in China and replied the questions interested by the visitor, which mainly include the national treatment of foreign companies in IPR dispute settlement, the destroy of knockoff model through judicial way, the copyright of video-sharing programs, the transaction and transfer of patent, the protection of trade secret and the development of IPR judge and lawyers in China.