暴涨与递表，老兵再度上场 今天是国庆假期的第七天，也是A股休市的第七天。 趁着市场短暂"静音"，我们来聊聊最近小火的一支股票。9月22日，这支老牌锂电材料股迎来了久违的高光时刻。 当天上午，天赐材料接连抛出两条重磅消息：其一，其全资子公司九江天赐与瑞浦兰钧达成合作，签订了一份电解液长期采购协议，涉及电解液总量不少 于 80 万吨；其二，公司正式向港交所递交IPO申请。 双喜临门的消息，瞬间点燃了资本市场的热情。短短几天内，天赐股价一路飙升，盘中一度冲击涨停，股价暴涨超77%，市值超730亿元。 这对于经历了两年利润暴跌、股价腰斩的天赐材料而言，无疑是一场"久旱逢甘霖"。而对天赐的创始人徐金富来说，更像是命运对其创业生涯的第三次垂 青。 从上世纪80年代在广州为"蓝月亮"代工起家，到90年代医药中间体创业折戟，再到2000年代初押注锂电材料，徐金富成为了浙江杭州富阳首富。 他的故事，是中国民营企业家三十年跌宕起伏人生的缩影。而如今，已年过花甲的他再次出征资本市场，带领天赐材料踏上全球化的新征程。 一个做洗发水原料的代工厂，如何变身为全球电解液龙头？天赐材料的故事，远比一份IPO招股书更精彩。 故事要从1987年 ...

克雷西 发自 凹非寺 量子位 | 公众号 QbitAI 被马斯克xAI起诉窃密一周后，OpenAI的回应终于来了。 OpenAI透露，已就此事件向法院递交了答辩状和驳回动议申请，不仅全面否认指控，还斥责马斯克滥用诉权对其进行滋扰。 并且OpenAI的这则通告立场十分强硬，直言将保护员工，不会被"霸凌行径"吓倒。 可以看出，估值达到5000亿美元的OpenAI，这波回应是相当硬气了。 xAI提出三项指控 从法律层面看，xAI对OpenAI的指控一共有三项，分别是违反联邦商业秘密保护法、蓄意干扰xAI与员工的经济预期关系，以及违反加州不正当竞争法。 xAI指控，OpenAI在面对Grok带来的技术竞争压力时，通过有预谋的系统性挖角对xAI进行窃密。 起诉书中列举了涉及到的xAI离职员工，并认定OpenAI的一名HR就是这一系列挖角和"窃密"行为的幕后黑手。 OpenAI则反驳称，无意窃取任何公司的商业机密，xAI起诉目的是恐吓员工，而不是其声称的保护商业秘密。 同时还补刀称，xAI之所以频繁有员工离职，纯属是xAI内部或者是马斯克的问题。 作为指控的依据，xAI列举出的具体事件也是有三件。 首先是xAI早期工程师 ...

Core Viewpoint - Shenzhen New Fortune Multimedia Co., Ltd. has filed a lawsuit against Shenzhen New Fortune Magazine Co., Ltd. and its affiliates due to serious impacts on its legal rights caused by various actions during the "Best Analyst" selection process [1][2]. Group 1: Legal Actions and Allegations - The company has identified several actions that negatively affect its legal rights, including the illegal acquisition and use of its data, such as voter names, phone numbers, and email addresses for the "Best Analyst" selection [2]. - Unauthorized use of proprietary award names like "Platinum Analyst," "Diamond Analyst," and "Double Diamond Analyst," along with the use of the company's historical award records as a basis for their selection [2]. - Misleading promotional language that causes confusion in the market, leading the public to mistakenly associate the "Best Analyst" selection with the company's own awards [2]. - Direct copying of the company's rules and historical data in award settings, industry classifications, and leaderboard designs, resulting in a highly similar format to the company's "Best Analyst" selection [2]. Group 2: Protection of Commercial Secrets - The case involves the theft and use of the company's commercial secrets, including voter names, phone numbers, and email addresses, which have been used in the "Best Analyst" selection [3]. - The judicial authorities will review whether the actions constitute criminal offenses and will advance the corresponding investigations [3]. Group 3: Commitment to Industry Standards - The company remains committed to fairness, impartiality, and professionalism, aiming to protect industry order and promote the healthy development of capital market research [4]. Group 4: Relevant Legal Provisions - Relevant legal provisions include the Trademark Law, which prohibits the unauthorized use of similar trademarks that could cause confusion [6]. - The Anti-Unfair Competition Law, which prohibits acts of confusion and infringement of commercial secrets [6]. - The Civil Code, which protects intellectual property rights and holds infringers accountable [6]. - The Criminal Law, which may classify serious violations of commercial secrets as a crime if proven [6].

Core Viewpoint - The commercial dispute between Ningde Times and Haicheng Energy Storage has gained attention due to a "help request letter" from the wife of a former executive at Haicheng, who was arrested for allegedly infringing on trade secrets. This incident highlights the ongoing patent conflict between the two companies, with Haicheng's IPO facing uncertainties as a result [2][10]. Company Overview - Haicheng Energy Storage, founded on December 27, 2019, focuses on the research, production, and sales of lithium battery core materials and lithium iron phosphate energy storage batteries. The company plans to list on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange on March 25, 2025 [3][10]. - As of 2024, Haicheng is the only company in the GWh-level lithium-ion battery shipment category that specializes in the energy storage sector, ranking third globally in energy storage battery shipments [3]. Market Position and Performance - In 2024 and the first half of 2025, Ningde Times maintained its position as the global leader in energy storage battery sales, with shipments of 93 GWh and 55 GWh, respectively [4]. - Haicheng's energy storage battery shipments grew at a compound annual growth rate of 167% from 2022 to 2024, reaching 35.1 GWh in 2024, capturing an 11% market share [15]. Financial Performance - Haicheng's revenue has seen rapid growth, with figures of 3.615 billion yuan, 10.202 billion yuan, and 12.917 billion yuan from 2022 to 2024, representing a 2.57-fold increase over two years. The company turned a profit in 2024, achieving a net profit of 318 million yuan after adjustments [15]. Patent Dispute - The patent conflict between Ningde Times and Haicheng has escalated, with Ningde Times filing multiple lawsuits against Haicheng, including a claim for 150 million yuan for unfair competition [4][10]. - As of June 2025, Ningde Times holds 49,347 patents, significantly outnumbering Haicheng's 3,900 patents [15]. Key Personnel and Background - Haicheng's key personnel, including its founder Wu Zuyu, have backgrounds in Ningde Times, which has contributed to the company's rapid rise. Wu worked at Ningde Times for over seven years before founding Haicheng [10][11].

Core Viewpoint - Guangzhou Tinci Materials Technology Co., Ltd. has won a legal battle against former employees who leaked trade secrets, with the court upholding the conviction for commercial secret infringement [2][5]. Company Summary - Tinci Materials' subsidiary, Jiujiang Tinci, received a criminal judgment confirming the conviction of former employees Li Sheng and Zheng Feilong for infringing on commercial secrets, with adjusted sentences of 3 years and 2 years respectively [2][5]. - The company has been a leader in the electrolyte industry, being the only enterprise in China capable of industrializing the production of liquid lithium hexafluorophosphate and liquid lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide [5]. - Tinci Materials has been expanding its business into lithium iron phosphate cathode materials and battery recycling [6]. Industry Summary - The electrolyte industry has faced challenges with low capacity utilization rates below 40% and profitability at cyclical lows over the past two to three years [2][6]. - However, starting in July, the price of lithium hexafluorophosphate began to rise due to improved demand and reduced supply, with current prices stabilizing around 56,000 yuan per ton [8]. - The overall market for electrolytes is showing signs of a tight balance between supply and demand, with expectations for continued demand growth in the second half of 2025 [8].

长沙经开区"商业秘密保护新模式"入选商务部第六批"最佳实践案例"，以"前置保护"助力企业创新降本 增效。 在企业创新密集的区域，商业秘密保护正成为营商环境竞争的新焦点。 近日，商务部发布自由贸易试验区第六批"最佳实践案例"，中国（湖南）自贸试验区长沙片区——长沙 经开区探索推出的"商业秘密保护新模式"成功入选。该模式以"前置保护"为核心，将保护动作从传统 的"事后举证"转变为"日常留痕"，为企业创新构建起全流程的防护体系。 创新之痛，"看不见的资产"最易流失 在制造业和科技型企业聚集的长沙经开区，许多企业曾遭遇"创意在我、专利在他""人走密也走"的问 题。 如一家专精特新企业耗时多年研发的新技术，被竞争对手迅速复制，核心员工离职后携密入职其他公 司；某生物科技公司因研发周期长、人员流动频繁，关键配方与数据的归属难以证明；多家供应商合作 开发共性技术，却被个别企业抢先注册并反诉侵权…… 不仅如此，即使是一些因"微创新"和"小改小进"尚未达到专利申请门槛的技术，一旦流失也可能直接影 响产品良率和交付周期，企业或面临惨重损失。而在传统保护模式下，事后举证难度大、维权成本高， 企业往往陷入被动。 模式破局，从"事后举 ...

扬子晚报网9月15日讯(通讯员唐毓阳朱自清记者张凌飞)近日，连云港高投公司联合公安部第三研究所共同打造的连云港市首个"商业秘密保护基地"落地 海州区。该基地将重点为企业提供商业秘密保护、合法权益维护等一站式专业服务，标志着海州区在构建高水平企业服务体系、优化区域营商环境方面迈 出重要一步。 基地位于海州区(高新区)的公共安全联合创新中心。投入使用后，将优先面向区内龙头企业、有影响力的核心企业以及创新能力强、市场潜力大的优质中 小企业，提供系统性的商业秘密管理培训、保密制度建设指导及定制化防护方案制定等服务，全面帮助企业筑牢商业秘密"防火墙"。目前，基地已开展企 业试点，并成功为企业量身定制了全市首份商业秘密保护方案。 从长远来看，海州区将积极借鉴先进地区经验，探索建立商业秘密价值评估机制，推动相关制度与标准建设，助力企业将"隐形资产"转化为持续发展的核 心竞争力。同时，基地还将进一步梳理商业秘密应用场景，搭建多元对话与服务对接平台，为企业提供更精准、完善的专业支持，切实激发企业创新活 力，为海州区经济高质量发展注入新动能、提供新保障。 校对盛媛媛 在市场竞争日益激烈的背景下，商业秘密泄露与窃取风险正成为企业创 ...

Core Viewpoint - The case involving the unauthorized filming of the unlisted AITO M9 vehicle has highlighted issues of intellectual property and commercial secrecy within the automotive industry, leading to a court ruling against the individual responsible for the breach [1][2]. Group 1: Incident Overview - On July 11, 2023, a video featuring the AITO M9 was posted online, filmed inside the Seres factory [1]. - The individual, identified as Chen, entered the factory through a temporarily opened barrier and filmed the vehicle during a staff health check [1]. - After being discovered, Chen deleted the footage but later recovered it and published it online, claiming it was done out of fandom and curiosity [1]. Group 2: Legal Proceedings - Seres Company filed a lawsuit against Chen in the Chongqing First Intermediate People's Court, seeking to stop the infringement and claim damages [1]. - The court ruled that the interior design of the AITO M9 constituted a trade secret, and Chen's actions were deemed improper given the company's security measures [1]. - On January 13, Chen was ordered to pay over 250,000 yuan in damages to Seres Company for the infringement [2].

Core Viewpoint - The Supreme People's Court of China has released eight typical cases of unfair competition, emphasizing the importance of strict protection of fair competition order, punishing unfair practices like "free-riding" on well-known brands, and guiding the healthy development of new business models and technologies [1][2][3]. Group 1: Strict Protection of Fair Competition - Unfair competition harms the legitimate rights of other operators and consumers, distorting the market competition mechanism [1]. - The court has imposed punitive damages in cases such as the "centrifugal compressor selection" software and technical secret infringement case, where the defendants were ordered to pay over 166 million yuan for their actions [1][2]. - The "natural protein enzyme 3" case explored cross-border judicial protection of trade secrets, ensuring fair protection for foreign rights holders [1][2]. Group 2: Punishment of Unfair Competition Behaviors - The "certain cow" trademark dispute clarified that registering a similar name to a well-known brand constitutes illegal imitation, even if not yet in use [2]. - The "car maintenance service" case accurately identified and punished misleading information that damages competitors' reputations [2]. - The "moving software" case recognized the illegal scraping of vast amounts of product data as unfair competition, protecting the rights of honest operators [2]. Group 3: Guiding New Business Models - The court has strengthened rules to protect innovative achievements, guiding the healthy development of new business models [3]. - The case involving a third-party trading platform for online games highlighted the responsibility of platforms to prevent illegal activities like cheating and money laundering [3]. - The "transformation comic effect" case affirmed that the structure and parameters of AI models are protected under unfair competition law, promoting orderly competition in the AI industry [3].

Core Viewpoint - The recent lawsuit between Shanghai Mihayou and Shenzhen Tencent is primarily initiated by Mihayou to legally obtain user data, which Tencent cannot provide without following proper judicial procedures [1][4][5]. Company Summary - Mihayou has filed a lawsuit against Tencent to access QQ user data, citing the need for legal procedures to obtain such information due to privacy laws [2][4]. - Mihayou's legal department has been actively addressing data leaks, with two significant incidents reported in May 2025 involving unauthorized disclosures of game content [5][7]. - The company has released multiple videos detailing its legal actions against data leaks, gaining significant attention on platforms like Bilibili [7]. Industry Summary - The gaming industry, particularly in the two-dimensional (2D) game sector, faces frequent data leak incidents, with Mihayou's response being notably more aggressive compared to other game types [7][10]. - The core competitiveness of 2D games relies heavily on original artistic materials and storyline content, making leaks detrimental to player engagement and revenue [10][11]. - The industry experiences a 2.3 times greater revenue fluctuation due to leaks compared to other game types, highlighting the financial impact of such incidents [11]. - Legal frameworks regarding the protection of unpublished game content remain ambiguous, particularly concerning what constitutes a commercial secret [12].