成全在线观看免费完整的,成全影视大全免费追剧大全,成全视频高清免费播放电视剧好剧,成全在线观看免费完整,成全在线观看高清全集,成全动漫视频在线观看完整版动画

由錢伯斯特邀撰寫并轉(zhuǎn)載，原文請(qǐng)點(diǎn)擊【原文鏈接】

商業(yè)秘密保護(hù)絕非易事，在當(dāng)今中國(guó)更是如此。當(dāng)下，中國(guó)創(chuàng)新蓬勃發(fā)展，亦需求更加完善的商業(yè)秘密保護(hù)。在本文中，我將首先闡述中國(guó)商業(yè)秘密保護(hù)司法實(shí)踐的重要性，接著分享我對(duì)當(dāng)前司法實(shí)踐的一些建設(shè)性思考。隨后，我會(huì)總結(jié)我的團(tuán)隊(duì)為企業(yè)打造的創(chuàng)新型五維商業(yè)秘密保護(hù)體系，以及基于內(nèi)部實(shí)際需求的42個(gè)業(yè)務(wù)場(chǎng)景。我的團(tuán)隊(duì)已準(zhǔn)備好為創(chuàng)新者建設(shè)五維商業(yè)秘密保護(hù)體系及提供各類知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)法律服務(wù)。

Protection of trade secrets is never easy, especially in today’s China, where innovation is booming and calling for more comprehensive trade secret protection. In this article, I will firstly explain the importance of judicial practice in China’s trade secret protection, then I will share some of my constructive thoughts on today’s judicial practices. After this, I provide a summary of my team’s innovative five-dimensional trade secret protection system for corporates and 42 practice scenarios for our own benefit. My team is ready to offer five-dimensional trade secret protection system implementation services as well as all other IP legal services to innovators.

一家科技公司的核心技術(shù)圖紙被競(jìng)爭(zhēng)對(duì)手竊取，一款新藥的研發(fā)數(shù)據(jù)遭內(nèi)部人員泄露，一個(gè)電商平臺(tái)的核心用戶畫像被非法復(fù)制——這些看似遙遠(yuǎn)的危機(jī)，每天都在中國(guó)的商業(yè)戰(zhàn)場(chǎng)上真實(shí)上演。

A tech company’s core technical blueprints are stolen by competitors, a new drug’s R&D data is leaked by insiders, an e-commerce platform’s core user profiles are illegally replicated... these crises, seemingly distant from daily operation, unfold daily on China’s commercial battleground.

商業(yè)秘密，這個(gè)看不見、摸不著卻價(jià)值連城的“隱形資產(chǎn)”，正成為數(shù)字經(jīng)濟(jì)時(shí)代企業(yè)生存與發(fā)展的命脈。它不僅是蘋果、華為等巨頭的核心資產(chǎn)，更是中小微企業(yè)破局進(jìn)入成熟市場(chǎng)的“秘密武器”。我的團(tuán)隊(duì)的使命——“在知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)的道路上，做創(chuàng)新者的引路人、筑路人；推動(dòng)公平競(jìng)爭(zhēng)，保護(hù)真正的創(chuàng)新者”，與這樣的背景尤為契合。我們深知，每一次商業(yè)秘密案件的維權(quán)，不僅關(guān)乎企業(yè)的生死存亡，更關(guān)乎整個(gè)國(guó)家創(chuàng)新生態(tài)的健康發(fā)展，商業(yè)秘密保護(hù)彰顯的是國(guó)家對(duì)“創(chuàng)新驅(qū)動(dòng)發(fā)展”的戰(zhàn)略堅(jiān)守。

Trade secrets, these invisible yet invaluable “intangible assets”, have become the lifeline for corporate survival and growth in the era of digital economy. They are not only the core assets of giants like Apple and Huawei but also the “secret weapon” for SMEs to break through into the established markets. The mission of my team – ”to guide and pave the way for innovators on the path of intellectual property; to promote fair competition and protect genuine innovators” – resonates deeply within this context. We recognise that every trade secret case not only determines a company’s survival but also impacts the nation’s innovation ecosystem. Trade secret protection embodies China’s strategic commitment to “innovation-driven development”.

在我的團(tuán)隊(duì)經(jīng)辦的商業(yè)秘密刑事案件中，既有成功為權(quán)利企業(yè)維權(quán)，嚴(yán)厲打擊情節(jié)惡劣的犯罪行為的案件，同樣也有為犯罪嫌疑人辯護(hù)使其被合理量刑或免責(zé)的案件。我們?cè)谥R(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)道路上，致力于為企業(yè)、員工等真正的創(chuàng)新者探索并明確一條清晰的“紅線”，實(shí)現(xiàn)真正的公平競(jìng)爭(zhēng)，讓真正的創(chuàng)新能夠即不為侵權(quán)所累，也不為前路不明而憂。

As demonstrated in criminal trade secret cases handled by my team, we have successfully defended trade secret holders, cracked down on egregious criminal acts, and provided defence for criminal suspects to ensure proper sentencing or even exoneration. In the realm of intellectual property, we strive to define clear “red lines” for enterprises, employees and genuine innovators, fostering true and fair competition. What we have done and keep doing ensures innovation is neither burdened by infringement nor hindered by legal ambiguity.

1.從“無(wú)據(jù)可依”到“立體防護(hù)網(wǎng)”

1. Evolution in legal rules: from “no law to follow” to a “multi-layered protection matrix”

2019年《反不正當(dāng)競(jìng)爭(zhēng)法》：該法將商業(yè)秘密侵權(quán)的法定賠償上限提高至500萬(wàn)元人民幣，并引入懲罰性賠償（最高可達(dá)實(shí)際損失或違法所得的五倍），讓惡意侵權(quán)者付出“傾家蕩產(chǎn)”的代價(jià)。

2019 Anti-Unfair Competition Law: This law raised the statutory compensation ceiling for trade secret infringements to CNY5 million and introduced punitive damages (up to five times the actual loss or illicit gains), imposing ruinous costs on malicious infringers.

2020年《最高人民法院關(guān)于審理侵犯商業(yè)秘密民事案件適用法律若干問題的規(guī)定》：該司法解釋明確了電子數(shù)據(jù)、算法等新型商業(yè)秘密的認(rèn)定標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，并就非法手段的認(rèn)定提供了更具適用性的指導(dǎo)方針。

2020 Provisions of the Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Civil Cases Involving Trade Secret Infringement: These provisions clarified the standards for identifying new types of trade secrets, such as electronic data and algorithms, and provided more applicable guidelines on identifying unlawful means.

2020年《刑法修正案（十一）》：該修正案增設(shè)了“為境外的機(jī)構(gòu)、組織、人員竊取、刺探、收買、非法提供商業(yè)秘密”罪，劍指跨境商業(yè)間諜活動(dòng)。

2020 Criminal Law Amendment (XI): This amendment added the crime of “stealing from, spying on, bribing for, or illegally providing trade secrets to foreign entities”, targeting cross-border commercial espionage.

2021年《最高人民法院關(guān)于審理侵害知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)民事案件適用懲罰性賠償?shù)慕忉尅罚涸摻忉尀閼土P性賠償提供了詳細(xì)的考量因素，確保在涉及故意侵權(quán)的案件中，懲罰性賠償規(guī)則能夠有效適用。

2021 Interpretation of Supreme People’s Court on the Application of Punitive Damages in Hearing Civil Cases of Infringement upon Intellectual Property Right: This interpretation provided detailed consideration factors for punitive damages to ensure the rules on punitive damages can be effectively cited in cases involving malicious infringers.

2025年《最高人民法院 最高人民檢察院關(guān)于辦理侵犯知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)刑事案件適用法律若干問題的解釋》：該解釋整合了先前多件兩高關(guān)于侵犯知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)刑事案件的司法解釋，文字表述更加準(zhǔn)確凝練，亦補(bǔ)充明確了細(xì)節(jié)問題。

2025 Interpretation of Supreme People’s Court and Supreme People’s Procuratorate on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in Handling of Criminal Cases of Intellectual Property Infringement: This interpretation consolidated the existing interpretations of Supreme People’s Court and Supreme People’s Procuratorate concerning criminal cases of intellectual property infringement with polished texts and new articles on details.

2.司法實(shí)踐的突破性變化

2. Breakthroughs in judicial practices

(1)刑事手段成為震懾侵權(quán)的“利劍”

(1) Criminal measures as a “sword” to deter infringement

2023年，全國(guó)公安機(jī)關(guān)立案?jìng)刹樯虡I(yè)秘密刑事案件同比激增65%，其中60%涉及高新技術(shù)領(lǐng)域。商業(yè)秘密刑事的數(shù)量增長(zhǎng)也反映了商業(yè)秘密刑事保護(hù)力度的加強(qiáng)。在2023年-2024年期間，我的團(tuán)隊(duì)成功代理五件商業(yè)秘密刑事案件。之前，商業(yè)秘密刑事案件立案時(shí)有受阻，但目前，各地檢察院和公安廳都在通過辦案指引，從例如降低舉證責(zé)任等方面降低權(quán)利人報(bào)案的“門檻”。但在商業(yè)秘密內(nèi)容、侵權(quán)行為、損失金額的計(jì)算等事實(shí)上，仍呈現(xiàn)出各類復(fù)雜的法律問題。員工流動(dòng)，企業(yè)并購(gòu)、技術(shù)合作中處處都可能落入商業(yè)秘密的“陷阱”。

In 2023, Chinese public security authorities saw a 65% year-on-year surge in criminal trade secret cases, with 60% involving high-tech sectors. This reflected strengthened criminal enforcement. From 2023 to 2024, my team successfully handled five such cases. Previously, filing such cases faced hurdles, but prosecutors and police departments now streamline processes through guidelines, such as easing evidentiary burdens. However, legal complexities persist in defining trade secret content, proving infringement and calculating losses. Employee mobility, mergers and technical collaborations often trigger trade secret “traps”.

示例案件1：在伊某公司與被告人張某、李某共同侵犯了米某公司的商業(yè)秘密的刑事案件中，離職前員工以不正當(dāng)手段獲取米某公司技術(shù)圖紙入職伊某公司，最終，李某犯侵犯商業(yè)秘密罪，判處有期徒刑四年六個(gè)月，罰金人民幣十萬(wàn)元，伊某公司被處罰金四百萬(wàn)元。該案乃判罰當(dāng)時(shí)刑罰最高案件。

Exemplary case 1: In a case involving Company Y and defendants Zhang and Li, former employees illicitly obtained technical blueprints from Company M and joined Company Y. The court sentenced Li to 4.5 years’ imprisonment and a CNY100,000 fine, while Company Y was fined CNY4 million – the highest penalty of its kind at the time.

示例案件二：我的團(tuán)隊(duì)為上海自貿(mào)區(qū)首例商業(yè)秘密案中的被告辯護(hù)，這起侵犯加油槍商業(yè)秘密案耗時(shí)近兩年半，僅鑒定就反復(fù)做了6次，辯護(hù)方前后遞交材料也有5次，基于對(duì)法律問題透徹、全面的分析，被告人最終均未判實(shí)刑。

Exemplary case 2: My team defended a defendant in Shanghai’s first free-trade zone trade secret case involving fuel nozzle technology. The 2.5-year litigation required six rounds of forensics and five defence submissions. Through rigorous legal analysis, the defendant avoided imprisonment.

(2)員工流動(dòng)與商業(yè)秘密保護(hù)的平衡

(2) Balancing employee mobility and trade secret protection

在刑事規(guī)制幫助企業(yè)挽回?fù)p失和遏制不正當(dāng)競(jìng)爭(zhēng)的同時(shí)，新創(chuàng)企業(yè)及具備一定專業(yè)經(jīng)驗(yàn)的員工則更關(guān)注商業(yè)秘密和員工技能的邊界和區(qū)分。在甬某公司上市專項(xiàng)案件中，由于技術(shù)人員與某競(jìng)爭(zhēng)對(duì)手重合度較高而產(chǎn)生商業(yè)秘密爭(zhēng)議，然而該案中細(xì)致分析甬某公司的研發(fā)背景情況，則可以將甬某公司技術(shù)人員的研發(fā)與某競(jìng)爭(zhēng)對(duì)手之商業(yè)秘密進(jìn)行區(qū)分，使員工通過自身技能施展其創(chuàng)新能力。

While criminal protections help enterprises recover losses and deter unfair competition, start-ups and skilled employees increasingly seek clarity on the boundary between trade secrets and employee expertise. In a case involving Company X’s IPO, the overlapping of technical personnel with a competitor sparked disputes. Detailed analysis of R&D histories distinguished Company X’s innovations from the competitor’s secrets, enabling employees to leverage their skills lawfully.

（3）懲罰性賠償?shù)穆涞貙?shí)踐

(3) Implementation of punitive damages

自2019年反不正當(dāng)競(jìng)爭(zhēng)法修法以來(lái)，商業(yè)秘密民事案件中，針對(duì)惡意侵權(quán)行為在實(shí)際損失或侵權(quán)獲利確定的賠償基礎(chǔ)上可以適用2-5倍的懲罰性賠償。在最高人民法院審結(jié)的一起國(guó)內(nèi)兩家知名車企之間因大量員工“跳槽”引發(fā)的新能源汽車底盤技術(shù)秘密侵權(quán)糾紛案中，最高人民法院二審適用2倍懲罰性賠償，判決侵權(quán)人賠償經(jīng)濟(jì)損失及維權(quán)合理開支合計(jì)6.4億余元，創(chuàng)我國(guó)知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)侵權(quán)訴訟判賠數(shù)額歷史新高，也成為標(biāo)桿性案例。同時(shí)，該案判決在停止侵害以及拒絕履行法院判決的責(zé)任等方面，亦進(jìn)行了開創(chuàng)性探索。

Post-2019 amendments, civil trade secret cases allow punitive damages (2-5x actual losses or illicit gains) for malicious acts. In a landmark case, China’s Supreme Court applied 2x punitive damages in a dispute between two auto makers over electric vehicle chassis technology, awarding a record CNY640 million in damages. The ruling also set precedents for injunctive relief and penalties for non-compliance.

在司法實(shí)踐中，仍然會(huì)面臨各種問題和爭(zhēng)論。這些問題和爭(zhēng)論需要進(jìn)一步厘清，同時(shí)也需要從立法層面加以解決。我分享以下爭(zhēng)議點(diǎn)，請(qǐng)讀者一起思考。

In judicial practice, various issues and debates still arise, needing further clarification and resolution at the legislative level. I share the following contentions for readers to think about.

（1）商業(yè)秘密刑事案件到底是為了解決企業(yè)之間的經(jīng)濟(jì)糾紛，還是為了維護(hù)競(jìng)爭(zhēng)秩序、促進(jìn)創(chuàng)新

1. Whether criminal cases involving trade secrets aim to resolve economic disputes between enterprises or to maintain competitive order and promote innovation

這個(gè)實(shí)務(wù)中的爭(zhēng)議點(diǎn)，既是一個(gè)思想認(rèn)識(shí)問題，也是業(yè)務(wù)實(shí)踐問題。這個(gè)問題按照道理不應(yīng)該產(chǎn)生，因?yàn)樯虡I(yè)秘密刑事犯罪被規(guī)定在第三章破壞社會(huì)主義市場(chǎng)經(jīng)濟(jì)秩序罪，理應(yīng)沒有爭(zhēng)議。

This contentious point in judicial practice is both a conceptual and a practical issue. In theory, this should not be a matter of debate, because trade secret crimes are categorised as crimes of disrupting the socialist market economic order in Chapter III of Criminal Law, which should be clear-cut.

然而，在具體案件辦理時(shí)，仍有個(gè)別司法行政機(jī)關(guān)人員認(rèn)為該罪是經(jīng)濟(jì)糾紛，認(rèn)為其不應(yīng)當(dāng)插手，甚至建議權(quán)利人通過民事訴訟解決。這種觀點(diǎn)至少會(huì)造成部分公安階段的立案難，檢察階段產(chǎn)生畏難情緒，進(jìn)而致使案件推進(jìn)緩慢，直接構(gòu)成商業(yè)秘密維權(quán)的挑戰(zhàn)。

However, in handling specific cases, some judicial and administrative personnel still view these as economic disputes, believing that they should not intervene and even suggesting that the rights holders resolve the issue through civil litigation. This perspective can lead to difficulties in filing cases at the public security stage, reluctance at the prosecution stage and slow progress in case handling, directly resulting in challenges in enforcing trade secret rights.

我的團(tuán)隊(duì)相信，完善的商業(yè)秘密保護(hù)需求司法、行政機(jī)關(guān)上下對(duì)相關(guān)法律重新準(zhǔn)確理解。

My team believes adequate trade secret protection needs a refreshed understanding of relevant laws throughout the judicial and administrative organs.

（2）商業(yè)秘密具體內(nèi)容占侵權(quán)產(chǎn)品中的貢獻(xiàn)率應(yīng)如何計(jì)算

2. How to determine the contribution rate of the specific content of trade secrets in the infringing product

這個(gè)爭(zhēng)議點(diǎn)既是計(jì)算涉案金額遇到的問題，也是涉及立案標(biāo)準(zhǔn)金額30萬(wàn)如何計(jì)算的問題。以技術(shù)類商業(yè)秘密為例，有些人認(rèn)為應(yīng)該從整體考慮，就是如果缺少相關(guān)涉案技術(shù)時(shí)還是否可行，換言之，該涉案技術(shù)是否是不可或缺的；有些人認(rèn)為應(yīng)該考慮該技術(shù)占整體技術(shù)的比例來(lái)計(jì)算；有些人認(rèn)為應(yīng)該以該技術(shù)是否可以獨(dú)立為標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，進(jìn)而判斷其他設(shè)備或技術(shù)是否需要?jiǎng)冸x；有些人認(rèn)為應(yīng)該以涉案技術(shù)本身的價(jià)值來(lái)計(jì)算。

This contentious point in judicial practice is the issue encountered when calculating the amount involved in the case. This problem is related to how the criminal case filing threshold amount of CNY300,000 should be calculated. Taking technical trade secrets as an example, some believe that the necessity of the trade secret should be taken into account, ie, whether the related technology is indispensable; some think the proportion of the technology in the overall technology should be considered; others suggest that the independence of the technology should be the standard, based on whether other equipment or technologies need to be separated; and some argue that the value of the technology itself should be the basis for calculation.

以上標(biāo)準(zhǔn)都有一定的合理性，但本人更贊成以整體考慮為原則進(jìn)行計(jì)算。我的理由是，商業(yè)秘密犯罪本身歸于經(jīng)濟(jì)秩序犯罪范疇，主要維護(hù)的是社會(huì)經(jīng)濟(jì)中商業(yè)主體的公平競(jìng)爭(zhēng)，規(guī)制的行為是不得利用不正當(dāng)手段進(jìn)行競(jìng)爭(zhēng)，它的本質(zhì)更強(qiáng)調(diào)的是誠(chéng)信經(jīng)營(yíng)和競(jìng)爭(zhēng)秩序。同時(shí)，商業(yè)秘密的內(nèi)容僅僅強(qiáng)調(diào)非公知性，不需要滿足專利的新創(chuàng)性，所以其標(biāo)準(zhǔn)應(yīng)很低，亦便于規(guī)制商業(yè)秘密侵權(quán)行為的顯著危害性。商業(yè)秘密侵權(quán)行為一則造成市場(chǎng)競(jìng)爭(zhēng)失衡，二則會(huì)極大增加管理成本，同時(shí)對(duì)于市場(chǎng)主體創(chuàng)新的積極性造成極大損害，

Each standard has its rationale, but I personally favour the necessity of trade secret approach. My reasoning is that, since trade secret crimes fall under the category of economic order crimes, they primarily aim to maintain fair competition among commercial entities in the economy, regulating behaviours that use unfair means for competition. The essence of these crimes emphasises honest business practices and competitive order. Moreover, the content of trade secrets only needs to be non-public, without having to meet the novelty and non-obviousness standards required for patents; thus, a rather low standard should be set to avoid significant potential harm caused by infringement acts. Trade secrets infringement acts not only cause an imbalance in market competition but also greatly increase management costs and severely damage the enthusiasm for innovation among market entities.

綜上所述，商業(yè)秘密犯罪設(shè)立的本質(zhì)就是從社會(huì)整體價(jià)值考慮，因此在計(jì)算損失或商業(yè)秘密價(jià)值的時(shí)候以整體考慮為妥，整體考慮的路徑亦與促進(jìn)公平競(jìng)爭(zhēng)的立法目的相匹配。

Therefore, the establishment of trade secret crimes is essentially based on the overall social value, making it appropriate to consider the overall impact of the necessary trade secret when calculating losses or the value of trade secrets. I advocate holistic assessments to align with the law’s intent to protect fair competition.

（3）商業(yè)秘密的內(nèi)容如何歸納

3. How to summarise the content of trade secrets

這個(gè)爭(zhēng)議點(diǎn)聚焦中國(guó)法院的常見做法，將商業(yè)秘密的內(nèi)容總結(jié)為所謂的“商業(yè)秘密點(diǎn)”（而這一概念在法律或非法律層面都沒有明確的定義），而不是以更準(zhǔn)確的商業(yè)秘密內(nèi)容表述為準(zhǔn)。

This point of contention is about the common practice in Chinese courts to summarise the content of trade secrets as so-called “trade secret points” (which have no clear non-legal or legal definition), rather than a more accurate description of the trade secret content.

本人非常不贊成所謂商業(yè)秘密點(diǎn)之概念，因?yàn)檫@會(huì)帶來(lái)一系列問題。無(wú)論鑒定機(jī)構(gòu)、評(píng)估機(jī)構(gòu)以及司法機(jī)關(guān)都是以商業(yè)秘密點(diǎn)為判斷，但商業(yè)秘密點(diǎn)如何定義？由于缺少相關(guān)法律規(guī)定，這就會(huì)造成更多的爭(zhēng)議，比如：商業(yè)秘密點(diǎn)是以獨(dú)立技術(shù)方案、或獨(dú)立技術(shù)效果、或獨(dú)立功能、還是以其他規(guī)范為判斷標(biāo)準(zhǔn)？此外，盡管缺乏依據(jù)，評(píng)估機(jī)構(gòu)也被要求以商業(yè)秘密點(diǎn)進(jìn)行評(píng)估。

I strongly disapprove of the concept of trade secret points as it leads to a series of problems. Whether made by appraisal institutions, evaluation agencies or judicial authorities, judgements are made based on trade secret points, but how are these points defined? There are no relevant legal provisions, leading to more disputes. For example, are trade secret points judged by independent technical solutions, independent technical effects, independent functions or other criteria? Then, forensics evaluation agencies also assess the qualification of trade secrets based on trade secret points with no clear legal basis.

這也是造成上述第二個(gè)爭(zhēng)議焦點(diǎn)的主要原因，試想如果以商業(yè)秘密點(diǎn)為標(biāo)準(zhǔn)進(jìn)行評(píng)估，當(dāng)然就會(huì)帶來(lái)這個(gè)點(diǎn)的價(jià)值問題，使得難以、甚至無(wú)法從整體進(jìn)行考量了。因此，個(gè)人認(rèn)為商業(yè)秘密點(diǎn)的表述危害性非常大，應(yīng)當(dāng)盡快達(dá)成對(duì)商業(yè)秘密歸納標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的清晰共識(shí)。

To call back to the second contentious point mentioned above, if assessments of damage are based on trade secret points, such approach naturally raises the issue of the value of these points, making it difficult or impossible to consider the overall impact. Therefore, I believe the concept of trade secret points is highly problematic; clearer standards for summarisation of trade secrets are urgently needed.

基于我的團(tuán)隊(duì)辦理的商業(yè)秘密案件經(jīng)驗(yàn)，我們發(fā)現(xiàn)：90%的企業(yè)敗訴并非因?yàn)榉刹煌晟疲且驗(yàn)槿狈ο到y(tǒng)化的保護(hù)策略。

Based on my team’s experience in handling trade secret cases, we have found the reason why 90% of corporates lose trade secret lawsuits is not due to inadequate laws but rather the lack of systematic protection strategies.

今年，企業(yè)商業(yè)秘密體系建設(shè)的服務(wù)需求增多。以往在此類專項(xiàng)中，無(wú)論是我們自身，還是同行、學(xué)術(shù)方面的相關(guān)的研究和經(jīng)驗(yàn)也很多。然而，以往大多數(shù)的情況是，要么通過體系建設(shè)形成了大量的制度文本，卻無(wú)法落地執(zhí)行。如此難以執(zhí)行的內(nèi)部制度和規(guī)定難以幫助企業(yè)，企業(yè)在面對(duì)商業(yè)秘密侵權(quán)事件時(shí)仍然還在為完成起訴舉證而頭疼。團(tuán)隊(duì)在基于商業(yè)秘密訴訟服務(wù)經(jīng)驗(yàn)和對(duì)商業(yè)秘密體系的深度解析和由下至上的分析后，終于創(chuàng)設(shè)了全新的商業(yè)秘密保護(hù)體系。脫胎于我們的專業(yè)經(jīng)驗(yàn)，這一體系包括能夠解決前述痛點(diǎn)難點(diǎn)的體系建設(shè)維度和工作方法。

This year, there has been an increasing demand for services in implementing corporate trade secret protection systems. In the past, my team, peers in the profession and academia have carried out extensive research and studies in this specialised area. However, conventional implementing approaches have generally resulted in a large number of institutional documents that cannot be enforced in daily operation, leaving implementation useless for trade secret protection purposes. Such unenforceable internal rules and regulations cannot help the companies, leaving them struggling with evidence collection for litigation when facing trade secret infringement incidents. After in-depth observation and bottom-to-top analysis of trade secret infringement incidents, my team finally invented a new trade secret protection system framework. Born from our professional experience, this brand-new systematic framework and working methodology addresses these pain points and challenges.

在這一全新體系中，我們從確權(quán)管理、維權(quán)管理、權(quán)限管理、風(fēng)險(xiǎn)管理、外披管理五個(gè)維度進(jìn)行商業(yè)秘密體系建設(shè)的整體思考和設(shè)計(jì)，使體系建設(shè)能夠全面。通過實(shí)際工作場(chǎng)景為切入點(diǎn)，運(yùn)用自下而上的工作方式，為企業(yè)設(shè)計(jì)建設(shè)和完善的制度和執(zhí)行操作文本，讓每一條文本都能夠融入場(chǎng)景，為每一操作人在工作中實(shí)際應(yīng)用，以確保可落地執(zhí)行。

In the new framework, we divide trade secret protection system implementation into five dimensions: rights confirmation management, rights protection management, access control management, risk management and external disclosure management. This ensures a comprehensive and holistic design for the system. By using actual work scenarios as starting points and adopting a bottom-up approach, we design and refine operational documents for enterprises. Our implementation ensures that each provision is integrated into real-world scenarios and can be applied in practice by every employee.

我們的成功經(jīng)驗(yàn)已經(jīng)證明新的商業(yè)秘密體系建設(shè)消除了原有體系建設(shè)中的制度文本難以有效執(zhí)行的問題。我們提出的五維體系，針對(duì)每個(gè)維度幫助企業(yè)構(gòu)建從預(yù)防到應(yīng)對(duì)的全周期防護(hù)機(jī)制。企業(yè)商業(yè)秘密體系建設(shè)將在每一個(gè)維度的不斷打磨中而趨于完善。

Our successful experience has proved that such implementation eliminated the ineffectiveness of the institutional documents created by conventional approaches. Our proposed five-dimensional trade secret protection system implementation approach assists enterprises in building a full-cycle protection system from prevention to response. While we are still polishing each dimension, the whole trade secret protection system implemented by us will continue to evolve and mature.

上述體系思維和工作方法為企業(yè)打造體系的同時(shí)，也需要我的團(tuán)隊(duì)成員有更為有效、高效的工作技能，也啟發(fā)我的團(tuán)隊(duì)發(fā)現(xiàn)提升每位律師的實(shí)戰(zhàn)技能的管理方式。于是，我們精心打磨了42個(gè)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)業(yè)務(wù)場(chǎng)景，這些場(chǎng)景覆蓋了我們工作包括每一步驟和每一階段的方方面面，讓所有法律服務(wù)高效、全面、可靠，也讓我們的團(tuán)隊(duì)在實(shí)現(xiàn)愿景的路上更進(jìn)一步——“成為頂尖的知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)律師團(tuán)隊(duì)，做客戶創(chuàng)新路上最信賴的伙伴”。

This innovative framework requires my team to have more effective and more efficient working skills; meanwhile, this framework also inspires my team to invent new ways to obtain such working skills. To this end, we have meticulously crafted 42 standard practice scenarios that cover every step or stage of our daily jobs. These scenarios enable all legal services to be efficient, comprehensive and reliable, bringing my team one step closer to realising our vision: “To be the very best team of intellectual property attorneys and the most trustworthy companion of clients on their march to innovation.”

維護(hù)商業(yè)秘密的本質(zhì)就是打造公平競(jìng)爭(zhēng)的社會(huì)環(huán)境，為迎接創(chuàng)新、擁抱創(chuàng)新和提升創(chuàng)新提供制度保障；而我們團(tuán)隊(duì)的使命就是推動(dòng)公平競(jìng)爭(zhēng)，保護(hù)真正的創(chuàng)新者。伴隨我們的努力與熱忱，中國(guó)的商業(yè)秘密保護(hù)也必將越來(lái)越好。

The essence of protecting trade secrets lies in creating a fair and competitive societal environment, providing institutional safeguards while welcoming, embracing and enhancing innovation. My team’s mission is to promote fair competition and protect true innovators. With efforts such as these, the protection of trade secrets in China will undoubtedly continue to improve.