Because it believes that the teaching curriculum system and related materials used by others to run art training institutions have infringed its trade secrets, Beijing Festive Culture Communication Co., Ltd. will Sue Beijing Xinxing Technology Co., LTD., Beijing Changsheng Culture Media Co., Ltd. and relevant employees to the court. The defendants are required to stop infringing trade secrets, apologize, eliminate the impact, compensate for economic losses and reasonable expenses. After hearing, the Haidian Court found that the teaching teaching plan advocated by the company in this case did not belong to the trade secret protected by the Law against Unfair Competition, and rejected all the litigation claims of the company.
Brief of the case
The company said that its operation of art training institutions, through practice and exploration and cooperation with experts in the industry research and development, the formation of a set of great commercial value of the course system, the department of the company's important trade secrets, including technology and business. The company has adopted multiple confidentiality measures, including but not limited to: signing confidentiality agreements with company employees, storing in special encrypted electronic devices, and developing rules and regulations for the use and return of course content. Xiao Li and Xiao Zhang, formerly employees of Festive Company, established and operated similar art training institutions of Festive Company with other defendants. The art training institutions involved in the case used the teaching curriculum system and relevant materials highly similar to Festive Company, conducted enrollment and teaching, and publicly displayed the course content; The company found that Xiao Li and Xiao Zhang used their positions to copy and retain the company's trade secrets many times, mainly including the course system and teaching materials, such as teaching lesson plans, student evaluation reports, legal affairs information, etc., and provided them to the art institutions involved in the case for use. The defendants' behavior infringed on the company's trade secrets.
Therefore, the festival company appealed to the court, requesting the defendants to immediately delete and stop using the materials related to the festival company's trade secrets, make a written apology, eliminate the impact, and compensate the Festival company for the economic loss of 2069264 yuan and the lawyer's fee of 85,000 yuan and the notary fee of 3140 yuan.
Changsheng Company and relevant employees jointly replied that the festival company filed labor arbitration and litigation against Xiao Li and Xiao Zhang successively, and the effective judgment found that all the evidence submitted by the Festival company can be obtained from open channels and does not constitute a trade secret. The festival company also did not provide evidence to prove the specific direction of its claim of trade secrets, so it does not agree with all the claims of the festival company.
The favor company responded that the favor company only issued an invoice for Changsheng Company once, did not participate in the actual operation of the art institution involved, and had nothing to do with the case.
Court hearing
After hearing, the court held that the focus of the case is to judge whether the teaching plan materials advocated by the company in this case constitute trade secrets. The trade secret claimed by Festive Company in this case refers to its teaching plan. To this end, he submitted the course teaching plan materials involved in the case, claiming that the art training institution he founded has operated for many years, formed a complete curriculum system, and formed the corresponding course teaching plan materials.
According to the documented evidence, most of the contents in the teaching plan materials of Festive Company are educational contents of art training, and the curriculum system advocated by Festive company can be reflected in its brochure, which is easy for the relevant public to know. Moreover, in the process of teacher training, students also have some understanding of the course content and course teaching ideas, so the relevant contents are most likely known to the personnel engaged in art training. No longer classified as non-public information. It can be seen that the teaching plan advocated by the company in this case does not belong to the trade secret protected by the Anti-Unfair Competition Law.
In addition, in the labor contract signed by the company and employees, the confidentiality obligation is stipulated. The company also stipulates that the corresponding teaching plan materials are stored in the designated u disk, kept by a special person and lent out before the teacher gives lessons and returned after the lesson. It can be seen that the company has taken certain measures to prevent others from improperly obtaining the teaching plan materials. However, the corresponding measures are aimed at the carrier of the teaching plan, which is not information, and the company has not clearly stated the specific direction of its trade secrets.
In the end, the court made the decision. The case is now valid.
Judge's statement
If the right holder claims that his trade secret has been infringed, he should first prove that the content of his claim conforms to the constituent elements of the trade secret in the Anti-Unfair Competition Law. Trade secrets refer to technical information, business information and other commercial information that is not known to the public, has commercial value and has been kept confidential by the right holder. Among them, not being known to the public refers to the secret elements of the trade secret. Generally speaking, the judgment criterion should be that the information requested by the right holder for protection is not widely known and easily available to the relevant personnel in the field when the alleged infringement occurs. In addition, the right holder must also prove that it has taken reasonable confidentiality measures to prevent the disclosure of the trade secret prior to the occurrence of the alleged act.
(Source: Beijing Haidian Court Author: Chen Yuhan)
Related Cases
Appellant Pinchuang Company and appellant Yuan Desheng Company and other utility model patent infringement disputes Yuan Desheng Plastic Electronics (Shenzhen) Co., LTD. (hereinafter referred to as Yuan Desheng Company) is the patentee of patent No. ZL201420522729.0, the name of "an integrated selfie device" utility model patent. Zhongshan Pinchuang Plastic Products Co., LTD. (hereinafter referred to as Pinchuang Company), mainly accept foreign processing orders, production of related products. On May 9, 2017, in the (2016) Yue 73 Minchu No. 2351 case, Yuan Desheng Company reached a settlement agreement with Pinchuang Company and Zhongshan Rigao Precision Industry Co., LTD., agreeing that Pinchuang Company stopped producing, selling and promising to sell the accused infringing products, and compensated Yuan Desheng Company 35,000 yuan.
2022-06-07
Telephone：
Telephone：+86-755-82566227、82566717、13751089600
Head Office：13 / F, Building 14, Longhua Science and Technology Innovation Center (Mission Hills), No. 8 Golf Avenue, Guanlan Street, Longhua District, Shenzhen
Head Office：
13 / F, Building 14, Longhua Science and Technology Innovation Center (Mission Hills), No. 8 Golf Avenue, Guanlan Street, Longhua District, Shenzhen
Subsidiary Company：2808, Block B2, Yuexiu Xinghui Junbo, No.18 Tazihu East Road, Jiangan District, Wuhan City, Hubei Province
Subsidiary Company：
2808, Block B2, Yuexiu Xinghui Junbo, No.18 Tazihu East Road, Jiangan District, Wuhan City, Hubei Province
Service Number
Subscription Number
Copyright ©2016 Shenzhen Shenkexin patent Agency Co., LTD All rights reserved | 粤ICP备2021174526号
Copyright ©2016 深圳市深可信专利代理有限公司 版权所有 | 粤ICP备2021174526号 SEO标签
Copyright ©2016 深圳市深可信专利代理有限公司 版权所有
