On August 13, 2025, the Beijing People’s Procuratorate summarized case-handling experience and released the Guidelines on Trade Secret Protection and Risk Prevention. The aim is to provide a solid legal safeguard for technological innovation and industrial upgrading. These Guidelines not only clarify the standards for identifying trade secrets and determining ownership, but also, drawing on multiple representative criminal cases, illustrate the judiciary’s practical approaches to investigating trade secret infringement crimes and balancing the rights of holders with the public interest.
I. Core Protection Points
The Guidelines first emphasize that enterprises should start protecting trade secrets from the source, ensuring “clear objects, defined ownership, proper measures, and continuous management.” This is not only a legal requirement but also the first line of defense against risk. In addition, the Guidelines propose:
1. Clarify Information Scope and Ownership1) Timely confirm the secrecy, commercial value, and confidentiality measures of information.2) For trade secrets formed through duties, entrustment, or cooperative development, determine ownership in accordance with law or agreement.
The Guidelines also make clear that even business process information can constitute a trade secret if it possesses non-publicity and value.
2. Continuous and Tiered Confidentiality Measures1) Classify trade secrets into core, important, and general levels, and allocate different protective measures accordingly.2) Implement “restricted access, reasonable disclosure” management, and protect confidential information throughout its full life cycle.
3. Strengthen Awareness of Rights Protection and Evidence Preservation1) Keep records throughout R&D, preserving contracts, meeting minutes, expense vouchers, and other objective evidence.2) Make good use of civil, administrative, and criminal remedies, and apply for civil pre-litigation preservation.
4. Clarify Legal Bottom Lines1) Prohibit obtaining others’ trade secrets by theft, bribery, electronic intrusion, or other improper means.2) Using trade secrets after improving or iterating them may still constitute infringement.
Overall, the Guidelines provide an operable path for long-term protection of trade secrets through institutionalized, technological, and full-process management models.
II. Analysis of Typical Cases
The Beijing People’s Procuratorate not only elaborated on core protection points in the Guidelines, but also selected multiple representative criminal cases covering business information, technical information, formula protection, system vulnerability exploitation, iterative use, and resignation-related leaks, offering vivid references for enterprises in implementing protective measures.
1. Business Information Trade Secrets
These cases involve non-technical information such as transaction prices, client lists, and market strategies, which still have commercial value.
Case 1: Sun XX and Others Infringing Trade Secrets
Case SummarySun, former general manager of the international business department of a tech company, founded a competing firm after resigning, used customer prices, equipment parameters, and agent habits learned on the job to secure transactions, and, together with former technicians, used the company’s technical solutions to produce equipment, causing losses exceeding RMB 20 million.
Key Judicial Points1) Business information such as transaction prices and customer needs constitutes a trade secret if it is non-public and confers a competitive advantage.2) Technical information, including system architecture and algorithms, is protected if the rights holder has taken reasonable confidentiality measures (such as NDAs and group-based management).3) “Personal experience” must be distinguished from enterprise trade secrets; employees may not use obvious corporate secrets without authorization.
SummaryThe case confirms the equal legal standing of business and technical information in trade secret protection, and stresses the importance of enterprises defining secret boundaries and employees not exceeding their authorization.
2. Technical Information Trade Secrets
These cases center on technical solutions, source code, formulas, and other R&D results.
Case 2: Thickener Formula Case
Case SummaryAlthough the raw ingredients of a thickener developed by a tech company were public, the formula ratios were the core secret. The defendant obtained the formula through a former employee and produced and sold it, making illegal profits of over RMB 2.9 million.
Key Judicial Points1) Integrity Principle of Trade Secrets: Partial public disclosure of elements does not negate the overall non-public nature.2) Core technical information can focus on key parameters (such as ratios), which are protected as an integrated whole.
SummaryKey parameters of R&D formulas are critical trade secrets that should be managed with highly restrictive measures.
Case 3: He XX and Others “Iterative” Use of Technical Information
Case SummaryFormer technicians of a company modified part of the database tables and source code of the company’s management system and sold the product, with sales reaching RMB 4.1 million.
Key Judicial Points1) Updating or improving an existing trade secret does not alter its “identity”; infringement remains.2) Determining “identity” involves considering technical functions and substantive roles within the system.
SummaryIterating technology is not a defense against infringement, especially when core technology originates from the original rights holder.
3. Mixed-Type Infringement
This type involves both technical solutions and business operations, causing greater harm.
Case 4: Tian XX Exploiting System Vulnerability to Steal Core Technical Information
Case SummaryBefore resigning, Tian used a system vulnerability to download a large number of technical drawings unrelated to his work and used them to produce similar equipment at a new company, causing losses of RMB 2.15 million.
Key Judicial Points1) A system vulnerability is not a defense; confidentiality measures are valid if they would normally prevent disclosure.2) Economic loss can be calculated with reference to the industry’s average profit margin.3) To prevent “secondary leakage” during litigation, sign confidentiality commitments and minimize disclosure.
SummaryBoth technical and management loopholes must be closed to block such infringement chains.
4. Resignation Leaks and Insider Risks
Case 5: Niu XX Uploading Source Code Before Resignation
Case SummaryProgrammer Niu uploaded source code developed during employment to an open-source platform before resigning. Although later deleted, the act caused RMB 600,000 in remediation costs.
Key Judicial Points1) In the absence of a clear agreement, the unit enjoys rights to work-made-for-hire results.2) Unauthorized public release of source code, even briefly, can cause major economic losses and constitute a crime.3) Technical forensics can confirm identity via access records from code management tools.
SummaryThe resignation handover system must be coupled with technical safeguards, including timely revocation of access rights and destruction of materials.
Case 6: Yin XX and Others Infringing Copyright
Case SummaryAfter a gaming company ceased operations, two former employees used the game’s source code to operate an online game, with illegal revenue of RMB 300,000. This did not constitute trade secret infringement but did constitute copyright infringement.
Key Judicial Points1) Company closure does not affect the continued existence of rights to trade secrets or copyrights.2) Intellectual property ownership should be clearly defined in written contracts to prevent former employees from claiming verbal agreements as a defense.
SummaryThe case reminds enterprises that even if operations stop, technology and works remain legally protected, and ownership should be clarified during employment.
Comment
The Guidelines on Trade Secret Protection and Risk Prevention issued by the Beijing People’s Procuratorate serve both as a summary of judicial practice and an important guide for enterprises and individuals to prevent trade secret risks. Through detailed operational advice and numerous typical cases, the guidelines establish a full-chain protection system from prevention before the fact, control during the fact, to remedies after the fact, balancing legal enforceability with practical enterprise management.
For enterprises, the value of the guidelines lies in: 1. Accurate Identification and Clear Ownership: Clarifying secrecy, value, and ownership scope to avoid ambiguity in protection objects.2. Full-Process Protection and Tiered Management: Applying full life-cycle, classified management to trade secrets, combining technical and institutional safeguards.3. Evidence Preservation and Rights Protection Awareness: Keeping complete records of R&D and operations to support multiple legal remedies.4. Bottom-Line Control and Risk Blocking: Prohibiting improper acquisition, iterative use, and unlawful disclosure, and preventing vulnerabilities and resignation leaks.
For judicial authorities, the guidelines reflect practical measures such as using technology to compensate for evidentiary gaps, preventing “secondary leakage” in litigation, and scientifically assessing losses based on industry characteristics, thereby enhancing the effectiveness of intellectual property protection and fostering a fair competitive market environment.
I. Core Protection Points
The Guidelines first emphasize that enterprises should start protecting trade secrets from the source, ensuring “clear objects, defined ownership, proper measures, and continuous management.” This is not only a legal requirement but also the first line of defense against risk. In addition, the Guidelines propose:
1. Clarify Information Scope and Ownership1) Timely confirm the secrecy, commercial value, and confidentiality measures of information.2) For trade secrets formed through duties, entrustment, or cooperative development, determine ownership in accordance with law or agreement.
The Guidelines also make clear that even business process information can constitute a trade secret if it possesses non-publicity and value.
2. Continuous and Tiered Confidentiality Measures1) Classify trade secrets into core, important, and general levels, and allocate different protective measures accordingly.2) Implement “restricted access, reasonable disclosure” management, and protect confidential information throughout its full life cycle.
3. Strengthen Awareness of Rights Protection and Evidence Preservation1) Keep records throughout R&D, preserving contracts, meeting minutes, expense vouchers, and other objective evidence.2) Make good use of civil, administrative, and criminal remedies, and apply for civil pre-litigation preservation.
4. Clarify Legal Bottom Lines1) Prohibit obtaining others’ trade secrets by theft, bribery, electronic intrusion, or other improper means.2) Using trade secrets after improving or iterating them may still constitute infringement.
Overall, the Guidelines provide an operable path for long-term protection of trade secrets through institutionalized, technological, and full-process management models.
II. Analysis of Typical Cases
The Beijing People’s Procuratorate not only elaborated on core protection points in the Guidelines, but also selected multiple representative criminal cases covering business information, technical information, formula protection, system vulnerability exploitation, iterative use, and resignation-related leaks, offering vivid references for enterprises in implementing protective measures.
1. Business Information Trade Secrets
These cases involve non-technical information such as transaction prices, client lists, and market strategies, which still have commercial value.
Case 1: Sun XX and Others Infringing Trade Secrets
Case SummarySun, former general manager of the international business department of a tech company, founded a competing firm after resigning, used customer prices, equipment parameters, and agent habits learned on the job to secure transactions, and, together with former technicians, used the company’s technical solutions to produce equipment, causing losses exceeding RMB 20 million.
Key Judicial Points1) Business information such as transaction prices and customer needs constitutes a trade secret if it is non-public and confers a competitive advantage.2) Technical information, including system architecture and algorithms, is protected if the rights holder has taken reasonable confidentiality measures (such as NDAs and group-based management).3) “Personal experience” must be distinguished from enterprise trade secrets; employees may not use obvious corporate secrets without authorization.
SummaryThe case confirms the equal legal standing of business and technical information in trade secret protection, and stresses the importance of enterprises defining secret boundaries and employees not exceeding their authorization.
2. Technical Information Trade Secrets
These cases center on technical solutions, source code, formulas, and other R&D results.
Case 2: Thickener Formula Case
Case SummaryAlthough the raw ingredients of a thickener developed by a tech company were public, the formula ratios were the core secret. The defendant obtained the formula through a former employee and produced and sold it, making illegal profits of over RMB 2.9 million.
Key Judicial Points1) Integrity Principle of Trade Secrets: Partial public disclosure of elements does not negate the overall non-public nature.2) Core technical information can focus on key parameters (such as ratios), which are protected as an integrated whole.
SummaryKey parameters of R&D formulas are critical trade secrets that should be managed with highly restrictive measures.
Case 3: He XX and Others “Iterative” Use of Technical Information
Case SummaryFormer technicians of a company modified part of the database tables and source code of the company’s management system and sold the product, with sales reaching RMB 4.1 million.
Key Judicial Points1) Updating or improving an existing trade secret does not alter its “identity”; infringement remains.2) Determining “identity” involves considering technical functions and substantive roles within the system.
SummaryIterating technology is not a defense against infringement, especially when core technology originates from the original rights holder.
3. Mixed-Type Infringement
This type involves both technical solutions and business operations, causing greater harm.
Case 4: Tian XX Exploiting System Vulnerability to Steal Core Technical Information
Case SummaryBefore resigning, Tian used a system vulnerability to download a large number of technical drawings unrelated to his work and used them to produce similar equipment at a new company, causing losses of RMB 2.15 million.
Key Judicial Points1) A system vulnerability is not a defense; confidentiality measures are valid if they would normally prevent disclosure.2) Economic loss can be calculated with reference to the industry’s average profit margin.3) To prevent “secondary leakage” during litigation, sign confidentiality commitments and minimize disclosure.
SummaryBoth technical and management loopholes must be closed to block such infringement chains.
4. Resignation Leaks and Insider Risks
Case 5: Niu XX Uploading Source Code Before Resignation
Case SummaryProgrammer Niu uploaded source code developed during employment to an open-source platform before resigning. Although later deleted, the act caused RMB 600,000 in remediation costs.
Key Judicial Points1) In the absence of a clear agreement, the unit enjoys rights to work-made-for-hire results.2) Unauthorized public release of source code, even briefly, can cause major economic losses and constitute a crime.3) Technical forensics can confirm identity via access records from code management tools.
SummaryThe resignation handover system must be coupled with technical safeguards, including timely revocation of access rights and destruction of materials.
Case 6: Yin XX and Others Infringing Copyright
Case SummaryAfter a gaming company ceased operations, two former employees used the game’s source code to operate an online game, with illegal revenue of RMB 300,000. This did not constitute trade secret infringement but did constitute copyright infringement.
Key Judicial Points1) Company closure does not affect the continued existence of rights to trade secrets or copyrights.2) Intellectual property ownership should be clearly defined in written contracts to prevent former employees from claiming verbal agreements as a defense.
SummaryThe case reminds enterprises that even if operations stop, technology and works remain legally protected, and ownership should be clarified during employment.
Comment
The Guidelines on Trade Secret Protection and Risk Prevention issued by the Beijing People’s Procuratorate serve both as a summary of judicial practice and an important guide for enterprises and individuals to prevent trade secret risks. Through detailed operational advice and numerous typical cases, the guidelines establish a full-chain protection system from prevention before the fact, control during the fact, to remedies after the fact, balancing legal enforceability with practical enterprise management.
For enterprises, the value of the guidelines lies in: 1. Accurate Identification and Clear Ownership: Clarifying secrecy, value, and ownership scope to avoid ambiguity in protection objects.2. Full-Process Protection and Tiered Management: Applying full life-cycle, classified management to trade secrets, combining technical and institutional safeguards.3. Evidence Preservation and Rights Protection Awareness: Keeping complete records of R&D and operations to support multiple legal remedies.4. Bottom-Line Control and Risk Blocking: Prohibiting improper acquisition, iterative use, and unlawful disclosure, and preventing vulnerabilities and resignation leaks.
For judicial authorities, the guidelines reflect practical measures such as using technology to compensate for evidentiary gaps, preventing “secondary leakage” in litigation, and scientifically assessing losses based on industry characteristics, thereby enhancing the effectiveness of intellectual property protection and fostering a fair competitive market environment.