////// . 44 16 r 201 LTM II TF 用 二 天赐材料9月15日发布公告称，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"）当日收到江西省九江市中级人民法院出具的终审《刑事判决 书》。这标志着该公司涉及的商业秘密侵权案件的刑事部分已尘埃落定。 案件始于2024年7月19日，江西省九江市湖口县人民检察院向江西省九江市濂溪区人民法院提起公诉，指控李胜、郑飞龙犯侵犯商业秘密罪。九江天赐作为 被害单位，其商业秘密被侵犯，给公司造成了损失。一审判决后，李胜、郑飞龙不服判决，向江西省九江市中级人民法院提出上诉。经过审理，终审判决于 2025年9月15日送达天赐材料。 江西省九江市中级人民法院在终审判决中，维持了原审对李胜、郑飞龙犯侵犯商业秘密罪的定罪部分，并对量刑进行了调整。具体判决如下： 此外，法院还禁止李胜自刑罚执行完毕之日或者假释之日起三年内从事主要工作内容涉及案涉化工产品生产的相关工作。 天赐材料在公告中表示，本次判决为终审判决，公司作为被害单位，上述判决对公司本期利润和期后利润不存在重大不利影响。公司正在根据判决结果追究 相应方的民事责任，并将积极维护公司和全体股东的合法权益。 ...

Core Viewpoint - Yitang Co., Ltd. (屹唐股份) has filed a lawsuit against Applied Materials for allegedly infringing on its trade secrets related to plasma sources and wafer surface treatment technologies, seeking compensation of 99.99 million yuan [2][3]. Company Overview - Yitang Co., Ltd. specializes in the research, development, production, and sales of wafer processing equipment required in integrated circuit manufacturing, holding a strong market position [3]. - According to Gartner statistics, Yitang Co., Ltd. ranks second globally in the dry etching equipment market with a market share of 34.60% in 2023, and is the only domestic company capable of mass-producing single-wafer rapid thermal processing equipment [3]. Financial Performance - From 2020 to 2024, the company's revenue increased from 2.313 billion yuan to 4.633 billion yuan, doubling in size, while net profit attributable to the parent company surged from 24.76 million yuan to 541 million yuan, a cumulative growth of 20.84 times [4]. - In the first quarter of this year, Yitang Co., Ltd. achieved revenue and net profit of 1.16 billion yuan and 218 million yuan, respectively, representing year-on-year growth of 14.63% and 113.09% [4]. - The company anticipates a net profit of 308 million to 340 million yuan for the first half of 2025, indicating a year-on-year growth of 24.19% to 37.09% [4]. Research and Development - Yitang Co., Ltd. has consistently invested in research and development, with expenditures increasing from 328 million yuan in 2020 to 717 million yuan in 2024, with R&D spending exceeding 15% of revenue in 2023 and 2024 [3].

Core Viewpoint - Beijing Yitang Semiconductor Technology Co., Ltd. has filed a lawsuit against Applied Materials, Inc. for allegedly illegally obtaining and using its core technology secrets related to plasma sources and wafer surface treatment, which has caused significant damage to its intellectual property and economic interests [3][7]. Group 1: Lawsuit Details - The lawsuit was filed in the Beijing Intellectual Property Court, with the case number (2025) Jing 73 Min Chu 908 [3]. - Yitang claims that Applied Materials has violated the Anti-Unfair Competition Law of the People's Republic of China by disclosing and claiming ownership of its technology secrets through a patent application [3][7]. - The company seeks several legal remedies, including stopping the defendant from further obtaining its technology secrets, destroying any related materials, and compensating for economic losses totaling 99,990,000 yuan [7][8]. Group 2: Technology and Business Background - Yitang's key technology involves the use of high-concentration, stable plasma for wafer surface treatment, which is essential for dry stripping, dry etching, and surface modification in semiconductor processing [6][8]. - The company has a strong original technology capability in this field and owns relevant trade secrets [6]. - Yitang's main business includes manufacturing dry stripping, rapid thermal processing, and dry etching equipment, which are critical processes in chip manufacturing [8].

Core Viewpoint - The Shanghai Third Intermediate People's Court has ruled in favor of Huawei in a case against Zunpai for infringing on its trade secrets, resulting in prison sentences for 14 former employees of the company involved in the case [1] Group 1: Legal Proceedings - The court sentenced 14 former employees of Zunpai, with 5 receiving actual prison time, and the primary offender sentenced to 6 years [1] - A total fine of 13.5 million yuan was imposed on the defendants [1] Group 2: Details of the Infringement - The case involved former senior executives of Huawei who, after leaving the company, established a technology firm and lured several R&D personnel to join them by offering high salaries and equity [1] - These individuals illegally obtained Huawei's chip technology information through methods such as note-taking and screenshots before leaving the company [1] - The infringing chip technology was found to have over 90% similarity to Huawei's trade secrets, constituting substantial similarity [1] Group 3: Impact on Huawei - The actions of the defendants led to the loss of Huawei's trade secrets, which should be evaluated based on the research and development costs and the potential revenue from the implementation of these trade secrets [1]

Core Viewpoint - The company has issued a formal statement addressing recent rumors and misinformation circulating online, clarifying various allegations and asserting its commitment to legal rights and business integrity [3][5][7]. Group 1: Clarifications on Allegations - The company refutes claims regarding a "commercial secret infringement" involving a technology that has been deemed public knowledge, asserting that it has not utilized this technology in any products [3]. - The company corrects misinformation about the age of its chairman's spouse, stating the accurate birth year is 1991, not 1964 [4]. - The company clarifies that its collaboration with the U.S. energy integrator Powin has not reached a scale of delivery, and it is not listed as a creditor in Powin's bankruptcy filing, indicating no adverse impact on its operations [5]. Group 2: Product and Legal Matters - The company defends its 587Ah battery cell against claims of similarity to a competitor's product, emphasizing that it is a fully self-developed product based on its previously released energy storage cell [6]. - The company addresses a civil lawsuit regarding unfair competition, stating that no legal documents have confirmed any wrongdoing, and it plans to defend its rights through legal channels [7]. - The company expresses strong condemnation of the malicious fabrication and dissemination of false information, urging the public to refrain from spreading rumors and to maintain a fair competitive environment [7].

8月4日深夜，海辰储能科技股份有限公司（以下简称海辰储能）发表严正声明称，针对近日涉及公司的 五大争议事项予以声明，包括与冯先生相关的"商业秘密侵权"事件、"美国第一大客户破产"及"15亿订 单蒸发"、不正当竞争诉讼等。 上述冯先生系冯登科。据悉，因涉嫌侵犯商业秘密，冯登科已被福建省宁德市警方依法采取强制措施， 报案人是宁德时代。 回应"商业秘密侵权"事件 否认不正当竞争 海辰储能声明称，针对与冯登科相关的"商业秘密侵权"事件，网传涉案"复合集流体技术"经专业的第三 方鉴定，该技术为公众所知悉不具有秘密性，因此不构成商业秘密。 据悉，与冯登科相关的"商业秘密侵权"事件，与专利侵权相关。专利信息显示，2019年成立的深圳市海 鸿新能源技术有限公司，在2022年将多项"集流体"相关专利转让给海辰储能，后者在完成专利转让后于 2023年注销。 此次专利转让的异常行为，让宁德时代产生怀疑，顺势查出冯登科或涉嫌侵犯商业秘密。 2017年，冯登科从宁德时代离职后，入职宁德时代的供应商金美新材。彼时，金美新材获得宁德时代的 复合集流体代工项目，由金美新材、福建新嵛、许彩霞三方执行。该项目结束后，冯登科加入海辰储 能。 "目 ...

Core Viewpoint - The company, Hai Chen Energy, issued a statement addressing recent online rumors and misinformation, asserting that the claims made are significantly inaccurate and do not affect its operations [1]. Group 1: Response to Rumors - The company clarified that the "composite electrolyte technology" related to Mr. Feng's "trade secret infringement" case is publicly known and does not constitute a trade secret, thus not impacting the company's operations [1]. - The company has not utilized the disputed technology in any of its products, and the ongoing investigation will not adversely affect its production and operations [1]. Group 2: Product Development - The company refuted claims that its 587Ah battery cell is similar to a competitor's product, stating that it is a fully self-developed product based on its previously released long-duration energy storage cell [5]. - The 587Ah battery cell was specifically designed for a 2-hour scenario requirement, showcasing the company's innovation in energy storage technology [5]. Group 3: Legal Matters - The company stated that there are no effective legal documents recognizing it as engaging in unfair competition in the ongoing civil lawsuit, emphasizing that the claims are solely the plaintiff's viewpoint [6]. - The company intends to defend its legal rights vigorously and condemns the malicious fabrication and dissemination of false information [6].

Core Viewpoint - Haicheng Energy issued a formal statement addressing five major controversies, including allegations of "trade secret infringement," the bankruptcy of its largest U.S. customer, and a lawsuit for unfair competition [1] Group 1: Trade Secret Infringement - The company denied the allegations of trade secret infringement related to Mr. Feng, stating that the "composite electrolyte technology" in question is publicly known and does not constitute a trade secret [6][7] - The controversy involves a patent transfer from Shenzhen Haihong New Energy Technology Co., which transferred multiple "electrolyte" related patents to Haicheng Energy in 2022 [6][7] - The company asserted that it has not used the "composite electrolyte technology" in any of its products, and the ongoing investigation will not adversely affect its operations [7] Group 2: Lawsuit for Unfair Competition - Haicheng Energy is currently facing a lawsuit from CATL for unfair competition, with the case filed in the Ningde Intermediate People's Court, set to be heard on August 12 [8] - The company emphasized that there has been no legal ruling confirming any unfair competition on its part, and the claims made by the plaintiff do not represent judicial recognition of the facts [7] Group 3: Customer Bankruptcy and Order Impact - The company addressed rumors regarding the bankruptcy of its largest U.S. customer, Powin, and the alleged evaporation of a 1.5 billion yuan order, clarifying that it has no unresolved debts with Powin [10][11] - The bankruptcy filing of Powin does not pose a negative impact on the company's operations [12] Group 4: Product Development and Competition - Haicheng Energy refuted claims that its 587Ah battery cell is highly similar to a competitor's product, asserting that its product is independently developed based on specific requirements [13] - The company highlighted that its 587Ah battery cell was first released in 2023, distinguishing it from competitors [13]

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the recent controversies surrounding Haitian Energy Technology Co., Ltd., including allegations of "trade secret infringement," the bankruptcy of its major U.S. client, and lawsuits regarding unfair competition [2][5]. Group 1: Trade Secret Infringement - Haitian Energy denies the allegations of trade secret infringement related to the "composite electrolyte technology," asserting that it is publicly known and does not constitute a trade secret [7][8]. - The controversy involves Feng Dengkai, who has been taken into custody by police for allegedly infringing on trade secrets, with the complainant being CATL [5][8]. - The company claims it has not used the disputed technology in any of its products, and the ongoing investigation will not adversely affect its operations [8][9]. Group 2: Bankruptcy of Major Client - The company refutes rumors regarding the bankruptcy of its largest U.S. client, Powin, stating that it is not listed among Powin's creditors and that the bankruptcy will not impact its operations [10][11]. - The company emphasizes that its collaboration with Powin has not yet reached a scale of delivery, thus mitigating potential risks from the client's financial issues [10][11]. Group 3: Unfair Competition Lawsuit - Haitian Energy is currently facing a lawsuit for unfair competition initiated by CATL, with the case filed in the Ningde Intermediate People's Court [9]. - The company asserts that there are no legal documents confirming its involvement in unfair competition, and the claims made by the plaintiff do not reflect judicial recognition of the facts [8][9]. Group 4: Product Development and Market Position - The company defends its 587Ah battery cell, claiming it is a fully self-developed product and not similar to competitors' offerings, despite claims of high similarity [11]. - Haitian Energy's market position is notable, with a valuation exceeding 25 billion yuan, ranking third in the global energy storage market [5].

Core Viewpoint - The company, Haicheng Energy Storage Technology Co., Ltd., has issued a statement addressing various rumors and misinformation circulating online, asserting that these claims are false and defending its business practices and reputation [1][2][3]. Group 1: Commercial Secret Infringement - The company refutes claims regarding a "commercial secret infringement" related to the "composite electrolyte technology," stating that a third-party assessment confirmed the technology is publicly known and does not constitute a trade secret [3][4]. - The company has not utilized this technology in any of its products, and the ongoing investigation will not adversely affect its operations [3]. Group 2: Personal Information Misrepresentation - The company clarifies misinformation regarding the age of the chairman's spouse, asserting that the claim of her being born in 1964 is false; her actual birth year is 1991 [4]. Group 3: Customer Bankruptcy and Order Impact - The company addresses rumors about its largest U.S. customer, Powin, filing for bankruptcy and the alleged loss of a $1.5 billion order, stating that their collaboration has not reached a scale of delivery and there are no outstanding debts between the two parties [5][6]. - The bankruptcy filing does not list the company as a creditor, indicating no negative impact on its operations [5]. Group 4: Product Development Claims - The company disputes claims that its 587Ah battery cell is similar to a competitor's product, emphasizing that its 587Ah cell is based on its own 2023 innovation and is designed for specific two-hour scenarios [6]. Group 5: Unfair Competition Lawsuit - The company responds to allegations of unfair competition, stating that no legal documents have confirmed any wrongdoing on its part, and the claims are merely the plaintiff's perspective [7]. - The company intends to defend its rights through legal channels and condemns the malicious spread of false information [7][9].