Trade secrets constitute a vital form of intellectual property and serve as the core competitiveness of enterprises. Strengthening the protection of trade secrets is a crucial task in intensifying anti-unfair competition efforts, which holds significant importance for stimulating corporate innovation vitality, optimizing the business environment, and promoting high-quality economic development in China. Protecting trade secrets means safeguarding innovation and development.
To fully leverage the educational and deterrent role of typical cases and guide business entities toward fair competition, six typical cases of trade secret infringement are hereby released.
Case One: Shanghai Yangpu District Market Regulation Bureau Penalizes Xuejing Electronic Technology (Shanghai) Co., Ltd., Nanjing Jiulanwen Instrument Technology Co., Ltd., Xu, and Guan for Trade Secret Infringement
Xu and Guan, former R&D personnel of Anmou Technology (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the rights holder) for the "Two-Dimensional Gas Chromatograph Solid-State Thermal Independent Modulator" (hereinafter referred to as TIM), were privy to the technical secret information of TIM and had signed confidentiality agreements with the rights holder. In 2015, Xu and Guan left the rights holder and established Xuejing Electronic Technology (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Xuejing Company) and Nanjing Jiulanwen Instrument Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Jiulanwen Company), continuing to engage in the R&D, production, and sales of solid-state thermal modulators. From August 17, 2016, to March 26, 2024, the solid-state thermal modulators sold by both companies incorporated the technical secret information of TIM. Additionally, the parties disclosed TIM's technical secret information externally by filing invention patent applications.
Xuejing Company and Jiulanwen Company violated the provisions of Article 9, Paragraph 3 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law of the People's Republic of China (revised in 2019), while Xu and Guan violated the provisions of Article 9, Paragraph 1, Item (3) and Paragraph 2 of the same law. On September 15, 2025, considering the harmfulness of the infringement, its duration, and the extent of damage, the Shanghai Yangpu District Market Regulation Bureau, pursuant to Article 21 of the law, confiscated illegal gains of RMB 77,800 and imposed a fine of RMB 730,000 on Xuejing Company; confiscated illegal gains of RMB 214,700 and imposed a fine of RMB 770,000 on Jiulanwen Company; fined Xu RMB 100,000; and fined Guan RMB 100,000.
Xu and Guan leveraged the technical secret information they possessed before leaving their posts to establish companies and produce and sell infringing products, representing a typical model of trade secret infringement involving "individual leakage plus corporate profit-seeking." The enforcement authorities' full-chain accountability model targeting both companies and the individuals involved not only struck at the organizers and implementers of the infringing acts but also severed the interest chain through which individuals or companies attempted to evade legal responsibility, creating a powerful deterrent effect. In this case, the enforcement authorities did not limit themselves to a single administrative penalty but actively promoted a combination of settlement between the parties and administrative punishment. By building a communication platform and organizing ten rounds of negotiations between the parties, a settlement agreement covering compensation amounts and patent ownership was ultimately reached. This enforcement practice demonstrates that resolving disputes through settlement is also an effective means of optimizing the ecosystem for trade secret rights protection.
Case Two: Jiangsu Province Liyang City Market Regulation Bureau Penalizes Xie and Chen for Infringing Trade Secrets in the Heavy Machinery Sector
In the heavy equipment manufacturing sector, core technical drawings are the key technical assets that maintain a company's market competitiveness and constitute typical technical trade secrets. The PGS roller crusher and B-series plate feeder produced by a certain heavy machinery company in Liyang (hereinafter referred to as the rights holder) enjoy high recognition and strong market competitiveness within the industry. From 2019 to 2021, Xie established a company engaged in heavy equipment manufacturing. Lacking the corresponding technical R&D capabilities, he sought to obtain the rights holder's technical secrets through improper means for illegitimate gain via multiple channels: first, purchasing equipment technical drawings from Wang, a former technician of the rights holder; second, leveraging outsourcing cooperation opportunities by requiring Chen, the production manager of the precision workshop at the rights holder's outsourcing partner, to provide the rights holder's equipment technical drawings; and third, recruiting Du, a former assembler of the rights holder, to serve as workshop director, through whom he obtained relevant drawing materials. The drawings provided by Du were only equipment casing drawings and did not involve core secret points. Using the illegally obtained core technical drawings, Xie produced and sold five units of similar mechanical equipment. After the case came to light, Xie compensated the rights holder RMB 3,800,000 in economic losses, and Chen and Du also compensated the rights holder RMB 100,000 and RMB 50,000 respectively.
Xie's act of obtaining and using the rights holder's trade secrets by improper means violated the provisions of Article 9, Paragraph 1, Item (2) of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law of the People's Republic of China (revised in 2019). Taking into comprehensive consideration of the case circumstances and compensation status, on January 6, 2025, the Liyang City Market Regulation Bureau, pursuant to Article 21 of the law, ordered Xie to cease the infringing acts and imposed a fine of RMB 100,000. Chen's act of disclosing the rights holder's trade secrets to others in violation of confidentiality obligations violated the provisions of Article 9, Paragraph 1, Item (3) and Paragraph 2 of the same law. On the same date, the bureau ordered Chen to cease the infringing acts and imposed a fine of RMB 50,000. Upon investigation and appraisal, since the drawings provided by Du were not within the scope of secret points for which the rights holder sought appraisal, no administrative penalty was imposed on Du. Wang has been subjected to criminal punishment.
This case is a typical multi-party compound trade secret infringement case, breaking through the conventional case-handling model of single-party infringement. The enforcement authorities clarified the liability boundaries across the multi-channel leakage chain of "external operator solicitation – outsourcing personnel disclosure – former employee transfer," precisely distinguished core secret points from non-core information, and imposed penalties on different parties according to their infringement circumstances, achieving proportionality between punishment and offense. This provides an enforcement reference for handling similar multi-party trade secret cases. This case also offers guidance for trade secret compliance management in manufacturing enterprises. Enterprises must establish a comprehensive trade secret protection system, clarify the scope of confidentiality and control measures, sign confidentiality agreements with core internal staff, conduct regular confidentiality training, incorporate outsourcing partners and former employees into confidentiality management, improve the full-process control mechanism for confidential materials, and build robust protective barriers from the source, thereby supporting the orderly, standardized, and innovative development of the equipment manufacturing industry.
Case Three: Hangzhou City Market Regulation Bureau in Zhejiang Province Penalizes Sun for Infringing Trade Secrets in the AI Large Model Sector
With the rapid development of AI large models and ever-advancing technology, enterprises are increasingly inclined to protect new types of technical information, such as prompt engineering and Agent skill packages, in the form of trade secrets. In July 2011, Sun joined an AI enterprise in Hangzhou (hereinafter referred to as the rights holder) as a senior algorithm expert and remained until his departure in July 2025. He was fully responsible for leading the R&D of a vertical-domain AI intelligent review model and possessed core confidential materials related to the model. In December 2023, during his employment, Sun registered and actually controlled Fayuan (Hangzhou) Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Fayuan Company) using his spouse's identity. In June 2024, Sun sent the rights holder's AI model-exclusive prompt templates, review rules, annotation specifications, and other related materials to Fayuan Company's R&D personnel for use in developing a similar AI model. According to special expert argumentation, the integrated scenario-based intelligent review solution formed by the combination of the aforementioned materials possesses non-public knowledge, commercial value, and the elements of enterprise confidentiality control, constituting a new type of integrated technical trade secret in the AI vertical domain.
As a core confidential employee in algorithms, Sun signed a special confidentiality agreement upon joining in July 2011 and bore confidentiality obligations both during and after his employment. His act of privately disclosing the rights holder's core confidential materials violated the provisions of Article 9, Paragraph 1, Item (3) and Paragraph 2 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law of the People's Republic of China (revised in 2019). On May 28, 2026, after comprehensive consideration, the Hangzhou City Market Regulation Bureau, pursuant to Article 21 of the law, ordered Sun to cease the disclosure and unauthorized use and imposed a fine of RMB 350,000. Fayuan Company's trade secret infringement was handled in a separate case.
This case is the first of its kind in China involving trade secrets in a vertical AI large model, breaking through the traditional enforcement limitations of the AI industry. Previously, intellectual property rights protection in AI was largely confined to source code rights confirmation. This case breaks the industry's "code complex," making the enforcement perspective more adaptable to the characteristics of the AI industry and clearly establishing that natural language-based integrated solutions and non-standard operational rules can independently constitute trade secrets. The handling of this case explored the path for identifying trade secrets in non-standard integrated AI technologies, filled the enforcement gap for trade secrets in China's AI industry, and delineated compliance red lines for algorithm talent mobility, peer AI R&D, and confidential data management in tech enterprises, thereby supporting the standardized and innovative development of the AI industry.
Case Four: Hangzhou City Market Regulation Bureau in Zhejiang Province Penalizes Xie and Hangzhou Xinchuan New Materials Co., Ltd. for Trade Secret Infringement
Nano-alloy powders are widely used in semiconductor chip manufacturing and other fields. The high-temperature nano-alloy powder forming manufacturing technology involves extensive technical information, including process design, materials science, high-temperature flow field layout, and dual-head cooling technology. A materials company in Zhejiang (hereinafter referred to as the rights holder), through long-term technological development, has established an advantage in the relevant international field. In 2014, Xie joined the rights holder and signed a confidentiality agreement, gaining access to the involved technical information during his employment. In 2017, Xie left the company. In November 2019, Xie established Hangzhou Xinchuan New Materials Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Xinchuan Company) and disclosed the trade secrets in question to the company for large-scale production. In March 2022, following a report, the Hangzhou City Market Regulation Bureau initiated an investigation into Xie and Xinchuan Company. Investigation and appraisal revealed that some of the technical information involved in both companies was identical. The parties claimed the technology in question constituted common knowledge and submitted evidence such as expired foreign patents but failed to provide materials related to their own R&D process. The case-handling authorities conducted cross-regional collaborative investigations and commissioned experts for multiple technical reviews. After review, it was determined that the technology involved multiple disciplines and was highly complex; expert opinions were divided on the determination of non-public knowledge, making administrative identification of the trade secret difficult. Accordingly, the case-handling authority recommended that the rights holder pursue civil litigation, leveraging the advantage of burden of proof reversal in civil proceedings. In the civil litigation, the court obtained evidence materials gathered during administrative enforcement, and both trials determined that Xie and Xinchuan Company constituted joint infringement.
After comprehensive assessment, the Hangzhou City Market Regulation Bureau determined that Xie violated confidentiality obligations by disclosing trade secrets, contravening Article 9, Paragraph 1, Item (3) and Paragraph 2 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law of the People's Republic of China (revised in 2019); Xinchuan Company, as a peer industry operator, knowingly obtained and used the technical secrets despite Xie's breach of confidentiality obligations, violating Paragraph 3 of the same article. On March 28, 2025, after comprehensive consideration, the bureau, pursuant to Article 21 of the law, ordered Xie and Xinchuan Company to cease their illegal acts and imposed fines of RMB 300,000 on each.
This case is a typical dual-party infringement case involving a former employee leaking secrets in the high-temperature alloy powder industry and a company illegally using them. The technical secrets involved are highly specialized and difficult to identify. Under the guidance of market regulatory authorities, the rights holder employed diversified means including administrative-civil linkage, using evidence gathered through administrative enforcement combined with burden of proof reversal in civil litigation to successfully protect its rights, providing an excellent model for rights protection in similarly complex cases.
Case Five: Zibo High-tech Industrial Development Zone Market Regulation Bureau in Shandong Province Penalizes Ji for Trade Secret Infringement
An infringer stole a company's core technology and improperly filed patent applications for personal gain, resulting in the public loss of the company's technical secrets and enormous damages. Ji, formerly an employee of a smart equipment company in Shandong (hereinafter referred to as the rights holder), was deeply involved in the technical development of one of the rights holder's core R&D projects during his employment. On August 7, 2024, prior to his departure, Ji violated the company's confidentiality system by unauthorizedly sending the project's technical drawings to his personal email. On September 12 of the same year, Ji filed an invention patent application with the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) in the name of his children. After learning that the rights holder was also preparing to file a patent application for the technology, he withdrew the patent application on November 22. When the rights holder submitted its patent application in December 2024, it learned from CNIPA that the technical information had been publicly disclosed due to the earlier patent application, rendering it lacking novelty and thus ineligible for normal patent filing. The rights holder promptly reported the matter to the local market regulatory authority. Investigation revealed that the technical information in question possessed non-public knowledge before the patent application, the rights holder had invested RMB 170,000 in cumulative R&D costs, and had implemented corresponding confidentiality measures for the technical information, which was duly recognized as a trade secret. Subsequently, with the active coordination of the case-handling authority with CNIPA, the rights holder successfully obtained patent authorization.
Ji's actions violated the provisions of Article 9, Paragraph 1, Item (3) and Paragraph 2 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law of the People's Republic of China (revised in 2019), constituting illegal trade secret infringement. Given Ji's active cooperation with the investigation and the settlement reached with the rights holder, including a letter of understanding issued by the rights holder, the Zibo High-tech Industrial Development Zone Market Regulation Bureau, considering his illegal circumstances and remorse, pursuant to Article 21 of the law, ordered Ji to cease the illegal acts and imposed a fine of RMB 30,000 on July 9, 2025.
This case is a typical example where stolen confidential technology was improperly used for patent applications, resulting in the loss of trade secret status. Unlike conventional infringement, patent publication causes the technology to enter the public domain, fundamentally and irreversibly destroying the core element of "secrecy" required for trade secret protection, with finality of damage. This case breaks through the traditional enforcement inertia of "emphasizing infringement punishment while neglecting rights restoration," establishing a case-handling approach that "balances infringement accountability with rights confirmation and restoration." While lawfully pursuing the perpetrator's legal liability, the authorities proactively coordinated with CNIPA to issue relevant supporting documents, clarified and corrected the patent ownership through administrative rights confirmation procedures, and achieved substantive restoration of the intellectual property rights status of the technology involved. This effectively halted the outflow of core technology, maximized recovery of enterprise losses, and provided a replicable enforcement paradigm for handling cases involving malicious preemptive patent filings of confidential technologies.
Case Six: Chongqing Liangjiang New Area Market Regulation Bureau Penalizes Yu for Trade Secret Infringement in the Digital Cultural and Creative Sector
The digital cultural and creative industry is currently booming, with short dramas, online literature, and digital content industries rising rapidly. Creative scripts are the lifeline of cultural and creative enterprises and the innovative achievements of creators. However, new business formats breed new risks; infringements such as script leaks and creative theft are continuously eroding the foundation of industrial innovation. In May 2023, Yu joined a media company in Chongqing (hereinafter referred to as the rights holder) and signed an employee confidentiality agreement, serving as a production assistant responsible for overall production coordination. From December 2023 to January 2024, the rights holder independently created the short drama script "Another New Year's Eve" (also known as "My Beautiful Mother") and planned to film it as a short drama for release. To protect this business information, the rights holder uploaded the script to the company's "Feishu" office system, restricted access to authorized personnel, and recorded access and download activities. On January 20, 2024, Yu, leveraging his authorized access to the "Feishu" office system, downloaded the script and stored it on a USB drive. In late January 2024, Yu provided the script to another company (which was unaware of the circumstances) during work-related opportunities. The script was subsequently adapted into a short drama and released on major platforms, causing the rights holder to lose RMB 342,000 in production costs.
Yu's act of privately obtaining and disclosing the company's short drama script, which possessed trade secret attributes, in violation of confidentiality obligations, contravened Article 9, Paragraph 1, Item (3) of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law of the People's Republic of China (revised in 2019). On March 12, 2026, considering factors such as Yu's proactive compensation for losses after the case, the Chongqing Liangjiang New Area Market Regulation Bureau, pursuant to Article 21 of the law, ordered cessation of the illegal acts and imposed a fine of RMB 50,000.
The handling of this case achieved three breakthroughs: First, it brought unreleased short drama scripts under the protection of business information. It clarified that core cultural and creative information such as creative concepts, scripts, and planning proposals, when meeting the requirements of secrecy, value, and confidentiality, can be protected under the Anti-Unfair Competition Law, covering the entire cycle from "creation-preparation-release" and filling the intellectual property protection gap in the digital cultural and creative industry. Second, it clarified the boundary between trade secrets and copyright. Copyright protection focuses on original expression and protects fixed forms of works, which remain protected after publication; trade secret protection focuses on undisclosed business information and maintains competitive advantage through confidentiality. Third, it protected the industrial innovation ecosystem. By cracking down on leakage and infringement, deterring unfair competition, and guiding business entities to uphold integrity, honesty, and innovation, the enforcement authorities safeguarded the innovative development of the cultural and creative industry.