Recently, the State Administration for Market Regulation published six typical cases of infringement of trade secrets, as follows:
1. The Yangpu District Market Supervision Bureau of Shanghai investigated and handled the case of infringement of trade secrets involving Xuejing Electronic Technology (Shanghai) Co., Ltd., Nanjing Jiulanwen Instrument Technology Co., Ltd., Xu, and Guan.
Significance:
This is a typical model of trade secret infringement characterized by “individual disclosure + corporate profit-seeking.” The enforcement authority pursued full-chain accountability against the infringing company and individuals, and facilitated a settlement agreement between the parties after ten rounds of negotiations, covering compensation amounts and the ownership of patent rights.
2. The Liyang City Market Supervision Bureau of Jiangsu Province investigated and handled the case of infringement of trade secrets in the field of heavy machinery by Xie and Chen.
Significance:
This is a typical multi-entity composite trade secret infringement case. The enforcement authority clarified the liability boundaries of the multi-link leakage chain of “solicitation by external operators — disclosure by outsourcing personnel — transfer by departing employees,” accurately distinguished core secret points from non-core information, and imposed penalties on different entities separately according to the circumstances of infringement, providing an enforcement reference for handling similar cases.
3. The Hangzhou City Market Supervision Bureau of Zhejiang Province investigated and handled the case of infringement of trade secrets involving a large artificial intelligence model by Sun.
Significance:
This is China’s first trade secret case involving a vertical AI large model. It clearly recognized that natural-language integrated solutions and non-standard operating rules can each independently constitute a trade secret, filling the enforcement gap for trade secrets in China’s AI industry and setting compliance red lines for the flow of algorithm talent, AI R&D by industry peers, and the management of confidential data by sci-tech innovation enterprises.
4. The Hangzhou City Market Supervision Bureau of Zhejiang Province investigated and handled the case of infringement of trade secrets by Xie and Hangzhou Xinchuan New Materials Co., Ltd.
Significance:
The technical secrets involved were highly specialized and difficult to identify. Under the guidance of the market regulation authorities, the right holder used multiple methods such as administrative-civil linkage, and successfully defended its rights by combining evidence obtained through administrative enforcement with the reversal of the burden of proof in civil litigation, providing a model for rights protection in similar cases involving complex characterization.
5. The Zibo High-tech Zone Market Supervision Bureau of Shandong Province investigated and handled the case of infringement of trade secrets by Ji.
Significance:
This is a typical case in which confidential technology was stolen and then improperly used to file a patent application, resulting in the loss of the trade secret. The patent publication caused the technology to enter the public domain, resulting in a fundamental and irreversible loss of the core constitutive element of a trade secret—secrecy. The enforcement authority broke away from the traditional enforcement approach of “emphasizing infringement punishment while neglecting ownership restoration,” established the case-handling approach of “placing equal emphasis on infringement accountability and ownership restoration,” proactively coordinated with the CNIPA to issue relevant certification materials, and clarified and corrected the ownership of the patent at issue through administrative confirmation procedures, thereby maximizing the recovery of the enterprise’s losses.
6. The Liangjiang New Area Market Supervision Bureau of Chongqing Municipality investigated and handled the case of infringement of trade secrets in the field of digital cultural creativity by Yu.
Significance:
The investigation and handling of this case achieved three breakthroughs. First, unpublished short-drama scripts were recognized as protectable business information. Ideas, scripts, and planning proposals meeting the requirements of secrecy, value, and confidentiality may be protected under the Anti-Unfair Competition Law, covering the full lifecycle from creation and preparation to release and filling a gap in intellectual property protection for the digital cultural and creative industry. Second, the boundary between trade secrets and copyright was clarified: copyright protects original expression in fixed works and remains valid after publication, while trade secrets protect undisclosed business information and preserve competitive advantage through confidentiality. Third, the industrial innovation ecosystem was protected. Law enforcement authorities cracked down on trade secret leaks and infringement, deterred unfair competition, and guided market entities to observe bottom lines, act in good faith, and prioritize innovation, thereby safeguarding the innovative development of the cultural and creative industry. (August 20, 2026, State Administration for Market Regulation)
1. The Yangpu District Market Supervision Bureau of Shanghai investigated and handled the case of infringement of trade secrets involving Xuejing Electronic Technology (Shanghai) Co., Ltd., Nanjing Jiulanwen Instrument Technology Co., Ltd., Xu, and Guan.
Significance:
This is a typical model of trade secret infringement characterized by “individual disclosure + corporate profit-seeking.” The enforcement authority pursued full-chain accountability against the infringing company and individuals, and facilitated a settlement agreement between the parties after ten rounds of negotiations, covering compensation amounts and the ownership of patent rights.
2. The Liyang City Market Supervision Bureau of Jiangsu Province investigated and handled the case of infringement of trade secrets in the field of heavy machinery by Xie and Chen.
Significance:
This is a typical multi-entity composite trade secret infringement case. The enforcement authority clarified the liability boundaries of the multi-link leakage chain of “solicitation by external operators — disclosure by outsourcing personnel — transfer by departing employees,” accurately distinguished core secret points from non-core information, and imposed penalties on different entities separately according to the circumstances of infringement, providing an enforcement reference for handling similar cases.
3. The Hangzhou City Market Supervision Bureau of Zhejiang Province investigated and handled the case of infringement of trade secrets involving a large artificial intelligence model by Sun.
Significance:
This is China’s first trade secret case involving a vertical AI large model. It clearly recognized that natural-language integrated solutions and non-standard operating rules can each independently constitute a trade secret, filling the enforcement gap for trade secrets in China’s AI industry and setting compliance red lines for the flow of algorithm talent, AI R&D by industry peers, and the management of confidential data by sci-tech innovation enterprises.
4. The Hangzhou City Market Supervision Bureau of Zhejiang Province investigated and handled the case of infringement of trade secrets by Xie and Hangzhou Xinchuan New Materials Co., Ltd.
Significance:
The technical secrets involved were highly specialized and difficult to identify. Under the guidance of the market regulation authorities, the right holder used multiple methods such as administrative-civil linkage, and successfully defended its rights by combining evidence obtained through administrative enforcement with the reversal of the burden of proof in civil litigation, providing a model for rights protection in similar cases involving complex characterization.
5. The Zibo High-tech Zone Market Supervision Bureau of Shandong Province investigated and handled the case of infringement of trade secrets by Ji.
Significance:
This is a typical case in which confidential technology was stolen and then improperly used to file a patent application, resulting in the loss of the trade secret. The patent publication caused the technology to enter the public domain, resulting in a fundamental and irreversible loss of the core constitutive element of a trade secret—secrecy. The enforcement authority broke away from the traditional enforcement approach of “emphasizing infringement punishment while neglecting ownership restoration,” established the case-handling approach of “placing equal emphasis on infringement accountability and ownership restoration,” proactively coordinated with the CNIPA to issue relevant certification materials, and clarified and corrected the ownership of the patent at issue through administrative confirmation procedures, thereby maximizing the recovery of the enterprise’s losses.
6. The Liangjiang New Area Market Supervision Bureau of Chongqing Municipality investigated and handled the case of infringement of trade secrets in the field of digital cultural creativity by Yu.
Significance:
The investigation and handling of this case achieved three breakthroughs. First, unpublished short-drama scripts were recognized as protectable business information. Ideas, scripts, and planning proposals meeting the requirements of secrecy, value, and confidentiality may be protected under the Anti-Unfair Competition Law, covering the full lifecycle from creation and preparation to release and filling a gap in intellectual property protection for the digital cultural and creative industry. Second, the boundary between trade secrets and copyright was clarified: copyright protects original expression in fixed works and remains valid after publication, while trade secrets protect undisclosed business information and preserve competitive advantage through confidentiality. Third, the industrial innovation ecosystem was protected. Law enforcement authorities cracked down on trade secret leaks and infringement, deterred unfair competition, and guided market entities to observe bottom lines, act in good faith, and prioritize innovation, thereby safeguarding the innovative development of the cultural and creative industry. (August 20, 2026, State Administration for Market Regulation)