º¬Ðß²ÝÉçÇø

Trade secrets now rank among the most vital instruments for IP protection in China¡¯s corporate sector. The recent surge in high-value civil awards and criminal prosecutions has sharpened corporate focus on this area, yet practical confusion persists. During 2025, the authors¡¯ team successfully steered multiple trade secret cases into criminal proceedings in Shanghai, Jiangsu, and Shandong, covering cutting-edge fields including power electronics, chip design and smart manufacturing.

Such experience yielded a deployable framework for trade secret systems and an integrated approach to combining non-compete obligations with trade secret protection. Drawing on casework experience, this article presents field-tested solutions intended to serve as a reference for practical rights enforcement and regulatory compliance.

Deadlock solutions

Starting with technical comparison. The team¡¯s casework demonstrates that meticulous technical comparison to establish identity can fortify a complaint and surmount the formidable hurdle of initiating criminal proceedings for trade secret infringement. Securing a case file, however, is merely the first step.

The broader objective is to sharpen the interface between the pleaded claims and the investigative follow-through, impelling enforcement agencies to pursue an exhaustive examination of the alleged infringement. The technical comparison that unlocks the investigation should never be mistaken for a conclusive determination of infringement scope.

Both the framing of the complaint and the subsequent investigative phase must transcend the initial comparison. The authorities should be guided to employ that comparison as a lens through which to conduct a far-reaching, multilayered inquiry ¨C excavating the full depth and breadth of the infringing conduct.

Navigating evidentiary challenges. Trade secret litigation involves evidence prone to disappearance, alteration and technical intricacy. Expert determinations are often contested in exclusion hearings, with challenges centring on the provenance of samples or the regularity of collection protocols.

Proposed countermeasures include: (1) early involvement in the rights holder¡¯s evidence preparation, offering guidance on electronic data retrieval ¨C its method, scope and preservation ¨C to secure lawful, complete extraction and thus underpin the integrity of materials submitted for expert scrutiny; and (2) proactive liaison with investigative agencies to remedy, via digital forensics, any procedural infirmities in evidence presented unilaterally by the complainant.

Synergising criminal and civil remedies. Faced with misappropriation of core technology, the team activated criminal channels to set compulsory investigation in motion. Harnessing the forensic capabilities of law enforcement, the team rapidly preserved essential electronic evidence and took key individuals into custody, thereby laying foundational proof of infringement.

Upon the investigative momentum being secured, parallel civil proceedings were also initiated, with preservation orders and injunctions conducted in place to equip the rights holder for optimal post-criminal compensation.

Judicial consultation mechanisms

The interplay of specialised technical fact finding and disparate judicial interpretations of relevant law remains a principal drag on enforcement efficiency in criminal trade secret cases.

On the judicial side, common obstacles are threefold: (1) the technologically dense nature of trade secrets and the complexity of applicable statutes, which invite varied interpretations; (2) limited hands on experience among investigators, impeding comprehension of trade secret technical points in cutting edge fields; and (3) budget constraints for police forces, coupled with prosecutors¡¯ and judges¡¯ lack of site-specific insight related to the disputed technology, which fosters underestimation of forensic hurdles and risks importing excessively stringent, real-world-detached criteria into adjudication.

For rights holders, enforcement pain points centre on: (1) high costs (chiefly forensic examination fees); (2) protracted timelines; (3) impeded progress at each procedural juncture; and (4) acute outcome uncertainty.

In response, the authors¡¯ team works to influence both legislation and operational practice along two axes. To tackle technical determinations, reference is made to the Guidelines of the Jiangsu Higher People¡¯s Court, Jiangsu Provincial People¡¯s Procuratorate and Jiangsu Provincial Public Security Department for Handling Criminal Cases Involving Trade Secret Infringement, which provide that a finding of non-public knowledge of technical information may preferentially rely on opinions of technical experts and investigation officers, as well as on scientific novelty search reports.

Specialised questions may likewise be resolved through expert panels or with technical investigation officers¡¯ input, while forensic appraisal is to be initiated only when necessary.

In light of the entrenched appraisal reflex in current practice, a strategy of ¡°early intervention and proactive evidence submission¡± is recommended. By submitting authoritative expert opinions and precise novelty search findings at the earliest stage, rights holders can steer investigative and judicial bodies towards using a palette of fact finding tools before resorting to appraisal, thereby circumventing futile or duplicate examinations, cutting costs, and accelerating the enforcement process for corporate complainants.

To facilitate inter-agency dialogue, the introduction of formal consultation mechanisms is advised in trade secret proceedings, drawing on the model set out in the Pudong New Area Provisions on Strengthening Trade Secret Protection. Cross agency discussion forums can promote more co-ordinated and professionally informed handling of such cases.

Protection infrastructure

Focusing on two interconnected pillars ¨C corporate trade secret infrastructure and integrated non-compete enforcement ¨C the authors¡¯ team has constructed multi-layered protection shields for businesses, aiming to overcome the twin obstacles of impractical compliance frameworks and unrecoverable non-compete breaches.

A case in point involved an employee who sought to evade non-compete obligations by registering with an intermediary entity while substantively working for a rival. The team¡¯s forensic efforts established the true employment relationship, yielding a significant contractual penalty for the client and robustly defending its trade secret rights.

The enforcement hurdles revealed in practice underscore the need for preventive action. Companies are advised to specify duty parameters clearly in non-compete agreements, implement rigorous departure procedures for high-risk staff, and utilise technical auditing to surface vulnerabilities before they materialise ¨C forging a resilient first line of defence.

Mitchell Liu is a senior partner at AllBright Law Offices. He can be contacted by phone at +86 136 7176 4200 or by e-mail at liuminxuan@allbrightlaw.com
Lu Shijiao is a partner at AllBright Law Offices. She can be contacted by phone at +86 139 1611 7790 or by e-mail at lushijiao@allbrightlaw.com