Beijing Intellectual Property Court releases 10 typical cases of infringement of trade secrets (3/10)
Original Article:
https://bjzcfy.bjcourt.gov.cn/article/detail/2023/12/id/7689887.shtml
On November 30th, the Beijing Intellectual Property Court held a press conference to release the ten typical cases of infringement of trade secrets. These cases are significant in clarifying the judicial thinking and rules for handling trade secret infringement cases, enhancing awareness of self-protection and compliance for businesses, and fostering a favorable atmosphere in society that respects and protects trade secrets. We will provide a complete translation of the case details and analysis text released by the Beijing Intellectual Property Court as follows:
Case 3: Infringement of Trade Secrets Related to the Synthetic Strains of New laying hen Variety
[Case Overview]
In this case, a certain poultry company (referred to as “Company A”) claimed that its synthetic strains of new laying hen variety “Da Wu Jin Feng” technology and its associated information (referred to as the “relevant technical information”) constituted a trade secret. Yang, as a member of an expert panel organized by the Provincial Livestock and Veterinary Bureau, acquired knowledge of the relevant technical information during expert evaluation and unlawfully disclosed it to a certain poultry limited liability company (referred to as “Company B”). Company B was aware that the relevant technical information belonged to Company A’s trade secret but still used it to breed the synthetic strains of “Jing Fen 6th” laying hens. Therefore, Company A believed that Company B and Yang jointly infringed upon their trade secret. They filed a lawsuit with the Beijing Intellectual Property Court, seeking a judgment to immediately stop the infringement of their trade secret, joint compensation of CNY 50,000,000 for economic losses, and reasonable expenses of CNY 200,000.
Beijing Intellectual Property Court, after conducting a trial, determined that the relevant technical information had been publicly disclosed in Company A’s patent specification titled “Breeding Method for synthetic strains of laying hens with Feather Color Distinction between Male and Female” (Patent No. 201410505667.7) and other publicly available publications. This disclosure did not meet the statutory requirement of not being known to the public, as outlined in Article 9, Paragraph 4 of the 2019 Anti-Unfair Competition Law. Therefore, based on this provision, the court ruled to dismiss the lawsuit filed by Company A.
Following the issuance of the first-instance judgment, none of the parties involved appealed.
[Key Points of the Judgment]
The synthetic strains of new laying hen variety technology is an existing technology that obtains commercial laying hen varieties that meet research and development needs by selecting paternal roosters and female hens of different laying hen varieties for crossbreeding. A certain poultry company’s synthetic strains of new laying hen variety “Da Wu Jin Feng” technology has changed the previous practice of searching for the cause of red feathers in commercial hens from the Luodao red sire group. Bai Laihang hens and Luodao were selected. Technology that involves crossbreeding red roosters to create pink-shell laying hens that can identify males and females by their feather color. However, most of the contents of the above-mentioned technologies have been recorded in the invention patent specification No. 201410505667.7 “Breeding Method for synthetic strains of laying hens with Feather Color Distinction between Male and Female” as the co-patentee of a certain poultry company, and the rest of the contents are also already disclosed in previously publications. Therefore, the loss of confidentiality of the technical information involved in the case claimed by a certain poultry company does not constitute a trade secret as stipulated in Article 9, Paragraph 4 of the 2019 Anti-Unfair Competition Law.
The case also pointed out that the right holder can choose different intellectual property protection models for an intellectual achievement. As far as the trade secret and patent protection models are concerned, if the right holder chooses the trade secret protection model, reasonable confidentiality measures must be taken to prevent the trade secrets from becoming known to the public. If the right holder applies for a patent for a trade secret and the patent application documents are made public, the trade secret will be made public and its confidentiality will be lost, and it will no longer be protected by the trade secret.