On June 20, 2025, the State Administration for Market Regulation (SAMR) announced eight typical cases of trade secret theft. These cases reflect emerging trends and high-risk points in trade secret violations and demonstrate the firm commitment of market regulatory authorities at all levels to fulfill their legal duties and crack down on unfair competition.In recent years, SAMR has continuously launched special enforcement campaigns against unfair competition, with intensified efforts targeting technology-intensive and high-growth sectors. These efforts aim to establish a tripartite working mechanism encompassing administrative protection, judicial remedies, and corporate self-protection. In 2024, over 14,000 unfair competition cases were handled nationwide by the market regulatory system, of which 143 involved trade secret infringement. The eight typical cases released this time involve various forms such as technical secrets, business information secrets, social media leaks, post-employment secret retention, and cyber intrusion, all of which are highly representative and cautionary. The following are introductions and interpretations of the eight cases.
1. Wuxi Yasaide Company Illegally Obtained Blueprints, Constituting Multiple Infringements Sang, the legal representative of Wuxi Yasaide Machine Tool Accessories Co., Ltd., signed a confidentiality agreement while working for a former employer. During his tenure, he secretly photographed technical drawings using his mobile phone and later, after resignation, illegally obtained related materials via a supplier. He also publicly displayed the trade secrets on the company website.The court, based on Article 9 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law of the People's Republic of China and Articles 972–975 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China, determined that Yasaide and Sang had infringed upon trade secrets. They were ordered to cease the infringement and pay RMB 1 million in damages. Additionally, an administrative fine of RMB 100,000 was imposed, illustrating the strong alignment between administrative enforcement and judicial rulings.
2. Unauthorized Transfer of Technical Materials by Chen in Shenzhen Highlights the Cost of Violation During his resignation handover, Chen transferred confidential technical data developed for a specific client to his personal computer via email. Upon investigation, he admitted to the infringement and deleted the relevant data.According to Article 973 of the Civil Code, the court held that merely obtaining and storing the trade secret constituted an infringement, even though no actual losses were caused. He was legally ordered to cease using the information. The market regulatory authority imposed an administrative fine of RMB 10,000. The case demonstrates that even if a trade secret is not used, unlawfully obtaining it still results in legal liability.
3. Zhang and Others in Shanghai Disseminated Corporate Technical Documents via WeChat Zhang downloaded adjustable curved catheter technical documents from the company via DingTalk and uploaded them to a WeChat group, where Fei and Su accessed them. Technical assessment confirmed the data was non-public, commercially valuable, and qualified as a trade secret.Under item (3) of Article 974 of the Civil Code, which prohibits instigating others to disclose or use trade secrets, the court held all three jointly liable. They were ordered to stop the illegal conduct. Given the absence of direct losses, no economic damages were awarded. The enforcement agency subsequently fined them RMB 100,000, RMB 100,000, and RMB 10,000 respectively.
4. Anhui Yunxiang Company Used Confidential Technology via “Secret-Carrying Employment” Two former employees, Zhai and Yuan, left their positions after signing confidentiality agreements and later joined Anhui Yunxiang Aviation Technology Co., Ltd., where they disclosed composite propeller curing process technology developed by their previous employer. Judicial appraisal confirmed a high degree of similarity between Yunxiang’s production materials and the original R&D content. Based on Article 9(3) of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law and Article 975 of the Civil Code, the court ruled that Yunxiang, as a third party who “knew or should have known” the confidential nature of the information, jointly infringed the trade secret. The company was ordered to pay RMB 800,000 in damages. The regulatory authority imposed a fine of RMB 370,000 and launched a separate investigation into the involved employees.
5. University Student in Shanghai Hacked Server to Steal Game Source Files Dong exploited a vulnerability in an OSS link to download source files of an unreleased game project belonging to a tech company, and made minor profits of RMB 1,513.5 through online sales. Investigation confirmed that the company had implemented confidentiality markings and access control. Pursuant to Article 973 of the Civil Code and Article 219 of the Criminal Law, Dong’s actions constituted a civil infringement and were suspected of illegally obtaining computer system data. As the monetary value was minor and below the criminal threshold, only civil penalties were applied, including restitution of illicit gains and an apology. An administrative fine of RMB 10,000 was imposed, and the profits were confiscated.
6. Hangzhou Aijia Company Stole Client Data via ERP System and Used Quotation Information Former salesperson Xu illegally logged into the ERP system to extract order, client, and quotation data. Concurrently, Xiao disclosed quotation data in her possession, both of which were used in the operations of a newly founded company. Under item (2) of Article 974 of the Civil Code, the court found both individuals and their company jointly liable and ordered RMB 1.2 million in damages. The data was identified as operational trade secrets. The company received an administrative fine of RMB 350,000, while Xiao was fined RMB 100,000. The court emphasized that unauthorized access to technical systems also constitutes trade secret infringement.
7. Wenzhou Oujilong Company Acquired Core Mechanical Blueprints by Poaching Employees Core employees Zhu and Zheng were poached by Oujilong Company and provided technical drawings they had acquired from their former employer, which Oujilong used for product development and production. Under Article 9(3) of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law and Article 975 of the Civil Code, the court determined Oujilong was a third-party infringer. The company was ordered to pay RMB 1.8 million in damages, and the involved employees were held liable for breach of contract. The regulatory authority imposed a RMB 200,000 fine on Oujilong. This case signifies intensified enforcement against unfair competition through talent poaching involving confidential information.
8. Yang in Zhoushan Conspired with Employees to Secretly Photograph and Trade Technical Blueprints Yang colluded with internal employees Bao and Hua to secretly photograph technical drawings and transmit them to him for use in screw production. A professional institution confirmed the drawings qualified as trade secrets. Based on items (1) and (3) of Article 974 of the Civil Code, Bao and Hua were found to have violated confidentiality obligations and illegally disclosed secrets, while Yang maliciously obtained and intended to use the information as a third party. The court held them jointly liable and ordered them to pay RMB 300,000 in damages. Yang was fined RMB 150,000; the other two were fined RMB 100,000 each and had RMB 5,000 of illegal gains confiscated.
Comment These eight cases highlight the diversity and complexity of trade secret infringements from various perspectives. The courts frequently cited Articles 972–975 of the Civil Code concerning trade secret protection, effectively complementing Article 9 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law. Administrative enforcement played a timely and reinforcing role, enhancing the effectiveness of civil judgments and showcasing the legal system’s robustness and coherence in intellectual property protection.Moreover, enforcement authorities adhered to principles of proportionality and combined punishment with education. Especially in cases involving first-time violations, voluntary cooperation, and no substantial harm, penalties were appropriately reduced to promote legal compliance and strengthen legal awareness. The centralized release of these typical cases not only reinforces deterrence at the legal level but also raises public awareness of trade secret protection. Through a dual approach of court rulings and administrative penalties, enterprises are increasingly aware of the importance of internal confidentiality systems, staff retention, and data leakage prevention, while employees are better informed of the legal consequences of breaching confidentiality obligations.
1. Wuxi Yasaide Company Illegally Obtained Blueprints, Constituting Multiple Infringements Sang, the legal representative of Wuxi Yasaide Machine Tool Accessories Co., Ltd., signed a confidentiality agreement while working for a former employer. During his tenure, he secretly photographed technical drawings using his mobile phone and later, after resignation, illegally obtained related materials via a supplier. He also publicly displayed the trade secrets on the company website.The court, based on Article 9 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law of the People's Republic of China and Articles 972–975 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China, determined that Yasaide and Sang had infringed upon trade secrets. They were ordered to cease the infringement and pay RMB 1 million in damages. Additionally, an administrative fine of RMB 100,000 was imposed, illustrating the strong alignment between administrative enforcement and judicial rulings.
2. Unauthorized Transfer of Technical Materials by Chen in Shenzhen Highlights the Cost of Violation During his resignation handover, Chen transferred confidential technical data developed for a specific client to his personal computer via email. Upon investigation, he admitted to the infringement and deleted the relevant data.According to Article 973 of the Civil Code, the court held that merely obtaining and storing the trade secret constituted an infringement, even though no actual losses were caused. He was legally ordered to cease using the information. The market regulatory authority imposed an administrative fine of RMB 10,000. The case demonstrates that even if a trade secret is not used, unlawfully obtaining it still results in legal liability.
3. Zhang and Others in Shanghai Disseminated Corporate Technical Documents via WeChat Zhang downloaded adjustable curved catheter technical documents from the company via DingTalk and uploaded them to a WeChat group, where Fei and Su accessed them. Technical assessment confirmed the data was non-public, commercially valuable, and qualified as a trade secret.Under item (3) of Article 974 of the Civil Code, which prohibits instigating others to disclose or use trade secrets, the court held all three jointly liable. They were ordered to stop the illegal conduct. Given the absence of direct losses, no economic damages were awarded. The enforcement agency subsequently fined them RMB 100,000, RMB 100,000, and RMB 10,000 respectively.
4. Anhui Yunxiang Company Used Confidential Technology via “Secret-Carrying Employment” Two former employees, Zhai and Yuan, left their positions after signing confidentiality agreements and later joined Anhui Yunxiang Aviation Technology Co., Ltd., where they disclosed composite propeller curing process technology developed by their previous employer. Judicial appraisal confirmed a high degree of similarity between Yunxiang’s production materials and the original R&D content. Based on Article 9(3) of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law and Article 975 of the Civil Code, the court ruled that Yunxiang, as a third party who “knew or should have known” the confidential nature of the information, jointly infringed the trade secret. The company was ordered to pay RMB 800,000 in damages. The regulatory authority imposed a fine of RMB 370,000 and launched a separate investigation into the involved employees.
5. University Student in Shanghai Hacked Server to Steal Game Source Files Dong exploited a vulnerability in an OSS link to download source files of an unreleased game project belonging to a tech company, and made minor profits of RMB 1,513.5 through online sales. Investigation confirmed that the company had implemented confidentiality markings and access control. Pursuant to Article 973 of the Civil Code and Article 219 of the Criminal Law, Dong’s actions constituted a civil infringement and were suspected of illegally obtaining computer system data. As the monetary value was minor and below the criminal threshold, only civil penalties were applied, including restitution of illicit gains and an apology. An administrative fine of RMB 10,000 was imposed, and the profits were confiscated.
6. Hangzhou Aijia Company Stole Client Data via ERP System and Used Quotation Information Former salesperson Xu illegally logged into the ERP system to extract order, client, and quotation data. Concurrently, Xiao disclosed quotation data in her possession, both of which were used in the operations of a newly founded company. Under item (2) of Article 974 of the Civil Code, the court found both individuals and their company jointly liable and ordered RMB 1.2 million in damages. The data was identified as operational trade secrets. The company received an administrative fine of RMB 350,000, while Xiao was fined RMB 100,000. The court emphasized that unauthorized access to technical systems also constitutes trade secret infringement.
7. Wenzhou Oujilong Company Acquired Core Mechanical Blueprints by Poaching Employees Core employees Zhu and Zheng were poached by Oujilong Company and provided technical drawings they had acquired from their former employer, which Oujilong used for product development and production. Under Article 9(3) of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law and Article 975 of the Civil Code, the court determined Oujilong was a third-party infringer. The company was ordered to pay RMB 1.8 million in damages, and the involved employees were held liable for breach of contract. The regulatory authority imposed a RMB 200,000 fine on Oujilong. This case signifies intensified enforcement against unfair competition through talent poaching involving confidential information.
8. Yang in Zhoushan Conspired with Employees to Secretly Photograph and Trade Technical Blueprints Yang colluded with internal employees Bao and Hua to secretly photograph technical drawings and transmit them to him for use in screw production. A professional institution confirmed the drawings qualified as trade secrets. Based on items (1) and (3) of Article 974 of the Civil Code, Bao and Hua were found to have violated confidentiality obligations and illegally disclosed secrets, while Yang maliciously obtained and intended to use the information as a third party. The court held them jointly liable and ordered them to pay RMB 300,000 in damages. Yang was fined RMB 150,000; the other two were fined RMB 100,000 each and had RMB 5,000 of illegal gains confiscated.
Comment These eight cases highlight the diversity and complexity of trade secret infringements from various perspectives. The courts frequently cited Articles 972–975 of the Civil Code concerning trade secret protection, effectively complementing Article 9 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law. Administrative enforcement played a timely and reinforcing role, enhancing the effectiveness of civil judgments and showcasing the legal system’s robustness and coherence in intellectual property protection.Moreover, enforcement authorities adhered to principles of proportionality and combined punishment with education. Especially in cases involving first-time violations, voluntary cooperation, and no substantial harm, penalties were appropriately reduced to promote legal compliance and strengthen legal awareness. The centralized release of these typical cases not only reinforces deterrence at the legal level but also raises public awareness of trade secret protection. Through a dual approach of court rulings and administrative penalties, enterprises are increasingly aware of the importance of internal confidentiality systems, staff retention, and data leakage prevention, while employees are better informed of the legal consequences of breaching confidentiality obligations.