四川明炬律师事务所发布的该报告梳理了2014-2024年中国商业秘密民事、刑事及行政处罚案件的核心数据与司法实践特征，为商业秘密保护提供实证参 考。 案件数量与结构。十年间商业秘密民事案件呈增长趋势，2019年达峰值591件，2021年后因文书公开政策调整，公开数据减少但实际案件持续增加。刑事案 件数量相对稳定，年均约112件，行政查处案件较少且分布分散。案件类型中，民事侵权纠纷占比超80%，其中技术秘密纠纷（1097件）是经营秘密（656 件）的1.7倍，反映技术信息保护需求更突出。 地域与管辖特征。案件高度集中于经济发达地区：民事案件中广东（622件）、上海（508件）、北京（400件）合计占比41.7%；刑事案件广东以65件居 首，占比20.2%；行政案件中浙江（93件）占比76.2%，凸显区域执法活跃度差异。管辖层级上，民事案件主要由基层和中级法院审理（占比80%），刑事案 件则以基层和中级法院为主（占比90%），最高人民法院因"飞跃上诉"制度审理了9%的民事案件。 审理与证据特点。民事案件平均审理周期156天，远超普通民事案件，主要因技术鉴定耗时、证据复杂。刑事案件鉴定使用率达61.6%，民事案件仅 ...

Core Viewpoint - The company Tianqi Materials has withdrawn a lawsuit against Jinshi Resources and its subsidiary regarding the infringement of technical secrets related to lithium hexafluorophosphate, indicating new developments in the case and the intention to file another lawsuit in the future [1][2][3]. Group 1: Lawsuit Background - The lawsuit initiated in 2023 involved Tianqi Materials claiming that Jinshi Resources and Jiangshan Jinshi infringed on its commercial secrets concerning lithium hexafluorophosphate technology [2]. - Tianqi Materials has been researching lithium hexafluorophosphate since 2005, developing core technical secrets including production formulas [2][4]. - The company became the largest electrolyte manufacturer in China in 2017 after entering the supply chains of ATL and CATL [2]. Group 2: Legal Proceedings - After the Guangzhou Intellectual Property Court accepted the case, Jinshi Resources raised jurisdictional objections, which were ultimately dismissed by the Supreme People's Court, transferring the case to the Hangzhou Intermediate People's Court [3]. - Tianqi Materials' withdrawal of the lawsuit was approved by the Hangzhou Intermediate People's Court, which found the request compliant with legal regulations [3]. Group 3: Technical Secrets and Allegations - The dispute centers around the production formula and process of lithium hexafluorophosphate, a key raw material for electrolytes [2][4]. - Chen Chunfa, a former employee of Tianqi Materials, is a defendant in the case, having previously worked on the production and process changes of lithium hexafluorophosphate [5]. - Tianqi Materials claims that Jinshi Resources' patent application closely resembles its own technology, suggesting a breach of trade secrets [5]. Group 4: Market Context - The lithium materials market has faced supply-demand imbalances and significant price declines, with lithium hexafluorophosphate currently priced around 50,000 yuan per ton, down approximately 90% from its historical peak [6].

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses a legal battle between two major companies in the lithium battery materials industry, Tianqi Materials and Yongtai Technology, focusing on allegations of trade secret theft and the implications for their competitive positions in the market [4][8]. Group 1: Legal Disputes - Tianqi Materials, controlled by Xu Jinfeng, has filed a lawsuit against multiple parties, including former engineer Li Sheng and competitor Yongtai Technology, claiming that Li violated confidentiality agreements and leaked proprietary technology related to lithium hexafluorophosphate [5][7]. - The lawsuit seeks nearly 900 million yuan in damages, while Yongtai Technology has countered with a defamation claim, demanding 57.52 million yuan [7][19]. - The legal conflict centers on whether Yongtai Technology unlawfully acquired and utilized Tianqi's trade secrets, with both companies presenting evidence to support their claims [25][26]. Group 2: Company Performance and Market Position - Tianqi Materials reported a revenue of 10.8 billion yuan in the previous year, accounting for 86% of its total revenue, with significant investments in R&D exceeding 1.1 billion yuan over three years [12][13]. - The company has established itself as a leader in the production of lithium hexafluorophosphate, achieving a 40% cost advantage over competitors, which is considered a key competitive barrier [23][31]. - Despite facing challenges, including a significant drop in profits to 480 million yuan, down 74.4% year-on-year, Tianqi has managed to improve production efficiency and profitability in the first quarter of the current year [34][36]. Group 3: Industry Context - The article highlights the competitive landscape of the lithium battery materials sector, where both Tianqi and Yongtai are vying for market share in the production of lithium hexafluorophosphate, a critical component for battery electrolytes [23][25]. - The price of lithium hexafluorophosphate has seen a dramatic decline from a peak of 600,000 yuan per ton in early 2022 to around 50,000 yuan by July 2023, impacting the financial performance of companies in this space [34]. - The ongoing legal disputes and market dynamics underscore the intense competition and the need for companies to protect their intellectual property while navigating pricing pressures [36][37].

Core Viewpoint - A legal battle is unfolding between two billion-dollar listed companies, Tianqi Materials and Yongtai Technology, over allegations of trade secret theft and defamation [2][9]. Group 1: Legal Proceedings - Tianqi Materials, controlled by Xu Jinfeng, has filed a civil lawsuit against 12 parties, including former chief engineer Li Sheng and competitor Yongtai Technology, claiming that Li violated confidentiality obligations and leaked proprietary technology [3][6][7]. - The lawsuit seeks nearly 900 million yuan in damages [7]. - Yongtai Technology has countered with a defamation lawsuit against Tianqi, demanding 57.52 million yuan in compensation [8]. Group 2: Company Background - Tianqi Materials, based in Jiangxi, has a market value of 35 billion yuan and generated 10.8 billion yuan in revenue last year, accounting for 86% of its total revenue [4][12]. - The company has invested over 1.1 billion yuan in R&D over the past three years and holds more than 300 patents [12]. - Li Sheng, who previously held key positions at Tianqi, allegedly profited 4.285 million yuan from sharing proprietary technology with Yongtai and another company [14]. Group 3: Industry Context - The dispute centers around lithium hexafluorophosphate, a key electrolyte material for batteries, where Tianqi is recognized as a leading domestic producer [27][28]. - Tianqi claims a 40% cost advantage over competitors in producing lithium hexafluorophosphate, which is a significant competitive barrier [29]. - The company has established relationships with major battery manufacturers, including CATL and LG Chem, with over 500,000 tons of electrolyte shipped last year [30]. Group 4: Financial Performance - In 2023, Tianqi's total revenue was approximately 12.52 billion yuan, a decrease of 18.74% compared to 2022 [32]. - The revenue from lithium-ion battery materials was about 10.97 billion yuan, representing 87.67% of total revenue, down 22.19% year-on-year [32]. - The company's gross profit margin for lithium battery materials was 17.45%, higher than the industry average [47]. Group 5: Market Challenges - The price of lithium hexafluorophosphate peaked at 600,000 yuan per ton in early 2022 but has since dropped significantly, affecting profitability [50]. - Tianqi's net profit fell by 74.4% to 480 million yuan last year, leading to a substantial decline in Xu Jinfeng's wealth [51]. - Despite challenges, the company has improved production efficiency and profitability in the first quarter of 2023, reporting a profit of 150 million yuan [52].

老字号蕴藏百年匠心工艺，其核心技艺、配方传承多依赖"口传心授"，师傅带徒弟，可一旦出现人 员流动，老字号的核心技艺、配方极易"外流"。这样的情况如何避免？日前，黄浦区市场监督管理局发 布了全市首个《老字号商业秘密保护和创新能力提升指南》（以下简称《指南》）。 联盟首批成员由上海中华老字号企业协会、上海老字号企业代表组成，联盟将充分发挥桥梁纽带作 用，探索解决老字号在工艺传承、数字化转型、跨界合作中的商业秘密保护难题。 "这是全市首个《指南》，旨在帮助企业从制度建设、技术防护等维度建立起一道'护城河'。"黄浦 区市场监督管理局副局长娄卫说。《指南》旨在从实务的视角，帮助老字号企业理解商业秘密基本概 念、识别商业秘密应用场景、构筑商业秘密保护体系、明晰维权救济路径以及厘清商业秘密保护与非遗 传承的关系，努力为老字号企业提升创新发展能级、焕发新生提供"最优解"。 "比如，《指南》根据老字号的特点，明确了哪些可能成为老字号商业秘密的'秘密点'，特别是帮 助我们厘清了非遗传承与商业秘密的内容区别，并指导企业制定非遗商业秘密的分层保护策略。"上海 豫园旅游商城（集团）股份有限公司副总裁王瑾说。 记者 唐烨 当天，黄浦区还 ...

长江商报消息 ●长江商报记者 黄聪 两家电解液材料上市公司"打假"，天赐材料（002709.SZ）的"技术保卫战"发酵，永太科技 （002326.SZ）的"名誉护卫战"开打。 7月3日，天赐材料公告称，全资子公司九江天赐作为原告，就商业秘密侵权纠纷案件向江西省高级人民 法院提起民事诉讼，涉案被告为另一上市公司永太科技等12名相关方，法院已于近日立案受理。 7月4日晚，永太科技迅速回应称，公司及控股子公司永太高新就天赐材料侵害公司及控股子公司名誉权 的行为，分别提起民事诉讼，公司索赔5751.93万元，法院也已立案受理。 永太科技以不正当手段获取技术？ 这场"互诉"涉及的索赔额达9.44亿元。究竟是永太科技涉嫌技术窃密，还是天赐材料利用商业诋毁不当 竞争？目前双方各执一词。 7月3日，天赐材料发布公告显示，公司全资子公司九江天赐高新材料有限公司（以下简称"九江天赐"） 作为原告，就商业秘密侵权纠纷案件向江西省高级人民法院提起民事诉讼，涉案被告为永太科技及其控 股子公司邵武永太高新材料有限公司（以下简称"永太高新"）等12名相关方，江西省高级人民法院已于 近日立案受理。 九江天赐成立于2007年10月30日，拥有 ...

华夏时报记者 夏高琴 南京报道 7月以来，两家锂电材料上市企业天赐材料（002709）（002709.SZ）与永太科技（002326） （002326.SZ）的商业秘密纠纷迅速发酵，已从刑事判决延伸至民事战场。 日前，天赐材料公告称，公司全资子公司九江天赐就商业秘密侵权纠纷案件，向江西省高院提起民事诉 讼，对包括李胜、永太科技及其控股子公司邵武永太等12个被告提起总计8.87亿元的索赔。 天赐材料起诉永太科技等12名相关方"窃密" 7月2日晚间，天赐材料公告称，全资子公司九江天赐作为原告，就商业秘密侵权纠纷案件向江西省高级 人民法院提起民事诉讼，涉案被告为另一上市公司永太科技、九江天赐前员工等12名相关方。永太科技 则迅速回应称，公司可能涉及诉讼，但尚未收到任何相关诉讼材料。从天赐材料提供的情况来看，正是 液体六氟磷酸锂相关技术遭到商业秘密侵权。 天赐材料称，李胜在离职后违反保密义务，与永太科技等相关方达成合作，将不正当手段非法获取的九 江天赐液体六氟磷酸锂工艺技术资料，运用在了邵武永太高新材料有限公司年产13.4万吨液体锂盐产业 化项目中。其中提到，李胜获取违法所得共计428.504万元，郑飞龙获取违法所得 ...

被天赐材料提起商业秘密侵权诉讼后，永太科技（SZ002326，股价12.16元，市值112.53亿元）迅速做出"反击"。 （新闻链接：《索赔8.87亿元，天赐材料子公司就商业秘密侵权纠纷起诉永太科技等永太科技回应称一直尊重他人知识产权》） 7月3日晚间，永太科技公告称，公司及控股子公司邵武永太高新材料有限公司（以下简称"邵武永太"）分别向天赐材料（SZ002709，股价18.95元，市值 362.77亿元）提起诉讼，称对方侵害公司名誉权，要求赔偿共计5751.93万元。 来源：永太科技公告 天赐材料曾宣称，公司前员工李胜为了获利，伙同他人与永太科技等达成合作协议，最终导致非法获取的天赐材料液体六氟磷酸锂工艺技术资料被运用在了 邵武永太年产13.4万吨液体锂盐产业化项目中。 对此，永太科技于7月2日和3日连发两条公告称，公司目前仅生产固态六氟磷酸锂产品，尚未生产销售案件所涉的液态六氟磷酸锂产品；永太科技、邵武永 太没有从李胜处直接购买天赐材料的商业秘密；天赐材料所称的侵权产线、技术均是永太科技自行研发，不存在侵害商业秘密情形。 永太科技表示，天赐材料多次利用媒体对公司实施商誉诋毁等侵权行为。永太科技讲述了多个事 ...

在永太高新看来，天赐材料起诉永太科技及公司的目的是为了抢占市场，"给公司名誉造成了严重影 响，并引起了相关公司股票的震荡，造成公司巨大的经济损失。" 此前，天赐材料于7月2日晚间宣布，其子公司九江天赐就商业秘密侵权纠纷案件向江西省高级人民法院 提起民事诉讼，起诉永太科技、永太高新等，被告包括企业和自然人合计12人。 在公告中，天赐材料表示，相关案件被告人李胜违反保密义务，伙同郑飞龙与永太科技、何人宝达成合 作协议后，永太科技、永太高新等将其非法获取的九江天赐液体六氟磷酸锂工艺技术资料，运用于永太 高新年产13.4万吨液体锂盐产业化项目（下称"13.4万吨液体锂盐项目"）中。 九江天赐合计提出了7条诉讼请求。其中包括判令12名被告共同赔偿原告的经济损失8.87亿元并公开道 歉等。 永太科技去年1月曾披露，13.4万吨液体锂盐项目（首期年产6.7万吨）已完成设备安装调试工作，开始 了试生产。7月2日晚，永太科技发布公告回应天赐材料时透露，公司目前仅生产固态六氟磷酸锂产品， 尚未生产销售上述案件所涉（液体锂盐）产品。 A股两大锂电材料巨头的纠纷进一步发酵。 7月3日晚，永太科技（002326）公告称，公司及控股子公 ...

据介绍，该项目由被告四王国超、被告五邵鸿鸣具体负责，并由被告十浙江美阳国际工程设计有限公司进行项目产线设计，并由被告六上海桦置工程科技有 限公司（该公司由郑飞龙、被告八姜存华与何人宝成立，实控人为何人宝）承接项目部分。 基于江西省九江市濂溪区人民法院已做出的一审《刑事判决书》所审查查明的事实及原告掌握的被告实施的侵权行为，九江天赐认为，被告具有明显的侵权 故意，应就其共同侵权行为承担连带赔偿责任。因此，九江天赐依法向法院提起诉讼，请求判令被告立即停止侵害技术秘密信息的行为，销毁侵权项目中的 生产产线设备及生产工艺资料，销毁承载商业秘密的专用设备、存储设备及工艺资料，共同赔偿经济损失及律师费用，并在相关媒体上赔礼道歉，消除影 响。 天赐材料表示，因本次诉讼事项中公司的全资子公司作为原告，预计不会对公司当期损益产生直接的负面影响。但因本案尚未开庭审理，亦不排除在审理过 程中达成和解或进行调解的可能，公司目前尚无法判断本次公告的诉讼对公司期后利润的影响。公司将密切关注本次诉讼事项的后续进展情况，并按照相关 规定履行信息披露义务。 天赐材料作为一家在行业内具有重要影响力的企业，此次提起的诉讼不仅是为了维护自身的合法权 ...