Core Points - The case involves the infringement of Huawei's HiSilicon chip technology trade secrets, with the estimated value of the illegally obtained technical information reaching 317 million yuan [1][2] - The case was characterized as a typical "insider" trade secret infringement, with significant challenges due to the complexity of the technology and the number of defendants involved [3][4] Group 1: Case Details - The case was initiated by the Shanghai People's Procuratorate against 14 defendants for the crime of infringing trade secrets [2][3] - The defendants, including Zhang, who was a former head of the RF chip development department at HiSilicon, conspired to develop similar Wi-Fi chips for their new company, Zunpai [1][2] - The defendants used improper means to acquire technical information from Huawei, including recruiting former employees and using unauthorized methods to obtain data [2][3] Group 2: Legal Proceedings - The Shanghai Third Intermediate People's Court delivered a verdict on July 28, sentencing Zhang to six years in prison and a fine of 3 million yuan, while other defendants received varying sentences and fines [3] - The prosecution emphasized the importance of accurately distinguishing the roles of each defendant in the collective crime and assessing the value of the trade secrets involved [3][4] Group 3: Implications for Industry - The case highlights the critical nature of trade secrets in modern economic society, impacting both corporate technology security and national high-quality development [4] - The judicial protection of trade secrets has been strengthened, reflecting a commitment to combat trade secret infringement and support innovation [4]

据最高人民检察院微信公众号8月27日消息，最高检指导上海市检察机关办理的尊湃侵犯华为海思芯片 技术商业秘密案已于7月28日判决，14名被告人十日内均未提起上诉，目前一审判决已生效。据悉，该 案中，被非法获取的技术信息估值达3.17亿元。 据了解，海思公司系华为公司的全资子公司。华为公司于2011年启动Wi-Fi芯片研发项目，后由海思公 司负责该项目，投入了大量人力物力进行长期自主研发，取得Wi-Fi芯片相应技术信息，并采取了合理 的保密措施。 被告人张某原系海思公司射频芯片开发部门负责人，离职后创立尊湃公司，并在新公司成立前后拉拢周 某甲、刘某、周某乙、顾某等人加入，任命4人担任高管并负责相应技术部门。其间，张某等5人经共同 商议，决定研发与海思公司同类的Wi-Fi芯片。 此后，为了缩短研发周期、迅速投入量产、加快吸引融资，经张某指示，周某甲等人以良好的薪资待 遇、发展前景等为条件，继续招募海思公司员工高某、王某等7人加入尊湃公司。7人在离职前后应尊湃 公司要求，自行或者勾结仍在海思公司任职的员工赵某、屠某，以截屏、抄录、微信传输等不正当手段 获取海思公司技术信息，用于尊湃公司芯片研发。 2024年4月10日 ...

Core Points - The article outlines a management system for the deferral and exemption of information disclosure by companies, ensuring compliance with relevant laws and regulations [1][2] - Companies can autonomously determine whether to defer or exempt disclosure of information that involves trade secrets, without needing to apply to the Shanghai Stock Exchange [1][2] - Specific conditions under which companies can defer or exempt disclosure include potential unfair competition, infringement of commercial secrets, and significant harm to interests [1][2][3] Summary by Sections Information Disclosure Management - The system is established to regulate the deferral and exemption of information disclosure, in accordance with the Securities Law and relevant stock exchange rules [1] - Companies are responsible for assessing the need for deferral or exemption based on the nature of the information [1][2] Definition of Trade Secrets - Trade secrets are defined as information that is not publicly known, provides economic benefits, and is subject to confidentiality measures [2] - National secrets are also defined, relating to information that impacts national security and interests [2] Procedures for Deferral and Exemption - Business leaders must submit relevant project materials and reasons for deferral or exemption to the board office for review [2][3] - The board secretary must assess whether the information meets the criteria for deferral or exemption within two trading days [2][3] Documentation and Record-Keeping - Companies must maintain records of deferred or exempted disclosures for at least ten years, including details of the internal review process and insider information [3][4] - Specific information regarding the type of disclosure, internal review procedures, and reasons for deferral must be documented [3] Conditions for Disclosure After Deferral - Companies must disclose information if the reasons for deferral are no longer valid, if confidentiality is compromised, or if the information has leaked [4] - Relevant materials must be submitted to regulatory bodies within ten days following the publication of periodic reports [4]

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the ongoing talent war in Silicon Valley, particularly focusing on Apple's allegations against OPPO for poaching a key engineer and stealing trade secrets related to health sensor technology [3][4][7][8]. Group 1: Talent War in Silicon Valley - The competition for AI talent has intensified in Silicon Valley, with major companies like Apple, Meta, and Microsoft aggressively recruiting top engineers [3]. - Apple's AI team has seen significant turnover, with core members leaving for competitors, highlighting the fierce battle for skilled professionals in the tech industry [3]. Group 2: Allegations Against OPPO - Apple has filed a lawsuit against OPPO, accusing the company of enticing former Apple Watch sensor architect Chen Shi to steal trade secrets before his departure [4][12]. - Chen Shi allegedly downloaded 63 confidential documents related to health monitoring technologies just before leaving Apple, which Apple claims constitutes systematic theft of trade secrets [9][14][19]. Group 3: Legal Proceedings and Evidence - The lawsuit includes evidence of Chen Shi's communications with OPPO executives, indicating premeditated plans to share proprietary information [18]. - Apple is seeking an injunction to prevent Chen Shi and OPPO from using its confidential health sensor technology in their products, arguing that such actions would undermine Apple's innovation and competitive edge [20][25]. Group 4: Industry Context and Implications - The case reflects broader concerns in the tech industry regarding the protection of trade secrets and the implications of employee mobility on competitive dynamics [31][32]. - Recent high-profile legal disputes over trade secrets in the tech sector have raised awareness about the need for robust protections against corporate espionage [31][36].

Group 1 - The core theme of the third "Enterprise Trade Secret Protection Capability Improvement Service Month" is to build protection systems and serve innovative development, focusing on enhancing awareness and capabilities in trade secret protection among enterprises [2] - The Guangdong Provincial Market Supervision Administration has implemented a three-year action plan for the "Golden Inner Bay Trade Secret Protection Innovation Project," establishing 24 innovation pilot areas and over 1200 grassroots service points across the province [3] - The initiative targets over 1500 key enterprises, including "chain master" enterprises and "specialized, refined, and new" small giants, to help them establish a comprehensive trade secret protection system [3] Group 2 - Guangzhou has introduced a "health check + diagnosis" service model for enterprises, completing in-depth assessments for over 300 companies and issuing 226 trade secret protection diagnosis reports [4] - Shenzhen has developed over 10 standard guidelines for trade secret protection, including the first national guidelines for research institutions and overseas risk prevention [4] - Zhuhai is advancing the legislative work for the "Zhuhai Special Economic Zone Trade Secret Protection Regulations," aiming to complete the draft by September 2025 [5] Group 3 - Foshan has created 53 government-enterprise WeChat groups to provide comprehensive trade secret services to 9882 large-scale enterprises and has introduced a new model for trade secret pledge financing, issuing the first 30 million yuan financing [5] - Jiangmen is establishing a trade secret protection base linked to local industries, forming alliances to provide legal consulting services [6] Group 4 - Several cases of trade secret infringement have been reported, including a case involving a Guangzhou automotive products company that paid 130,000 yuan for trade secret data, leading to a fine of 130,000 yuan for violating the Anti-Unfair Competition Law [7] - Another case involved a Guangzhou automotive repair company that unlawfully used customer information, resulting in a fine of 100,000 yuan [8] - Shenzhen's market supervision bureau penalized a laser company for retaining trade secret files after an employee's departure, imposing a fine of 100,000 yuan [9]

Core Viewpoint - Beijing Yitang Semiconductor Technology Co., Ltd. has filed a lawsuit against Applied Materials Inc. for alleged trade secret infringement related to plasma source and wafer surface treatment technologies [1] Group 1: Legal Action - Yitang claims that Applied Materials illegally obtained and used its core technology secrets, violating the Anti-Unfair Competition Law of the People's Republic of China [1] - The lawsuit has been filed in the Beijing Intellectual Property Court, with a claim amount of 99.99 million RMB [1] - The case has been officially registered as of the announcement date [1] Group 2: Employee Recruitment - Applied Materials is accused of hiring two employees from Yitang's wholly-owned subsidiary, Mattson Technology, Inc., who possess knowledge of the core technology related to plasma generation and processing methods [1] - Evidence suggests that after their recruitment, these employees contributed to a patent application submitted to the Chinese National Intellectual Property Administration, with them listed as the main inventors [1]

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the lawsuit filed by Yitang Co., Ltd. against Applied Materials for allegedly misappropriating its core technology related to plasma sources and wafer surface treatment, claiming damages of 99.99 million RMB [2][5][6]. Group 1: Legal Action - Yitang Co., Ltd. has filed a lawsuit against Applied Materials for illegal acquisition and use of its core technology secrets, specifically related to plasma sources and wafer surface treatment [2][5]. - The lawsuit claims that Applied Materials violated the Anti-Unfair Competition Law of the People's Republic of China by disclosing and claiming ownership of Yitang's technology through a patent application [6]. Group 2: Technology and Business Impact - Yitang's key technology involves high-concentration, stable, and uniform plasma for wafer surface treatment, which is widely used in its semiconductor processing equipment [5]. - The company asserts that the two employees hired by Applied Materials had previously worked at Yitang's wholly-owned subsidiary, Mattson Technology, Inc., and had signed confidentiality agreements regarding the technology [5][6]. - Yitang Co., Ltd. specializes in the research, development, production, and sales of wafer processing equipment for integrated circuit manufacturing, and is one of the few domestic companies with multiple R&D capabilities in this field [6]. Group 3: Market Position - As of the article's publication, Yitang Co., Ltd. has a market capitalization of approximately 67.623 billion RMB, following its listing on the Shanghai Stock Exchange's Sci-Tech Innovation Board on July 8 [6].

Core Points - Beijing Yitang Semiconductor Technology Co., Ltd. has filed a lawsuit against Applied Materials for alleged trade secret infringement [1] - The lawsuit claims that Applied Materials illegally obtained and used Yitang's core technology related to plasma sources and wafer surface treatment [1] - The lawsuit amount is set at 99.99 million RMB [1] Legal Context - Yitang asserts that Applied Materials violated the Anti-Unfair Competition Law of the People's Republic of China [1] - The case has been officially registered with the Beijing Intellectual Property Court [1] Employee Recruitment - The lawsuit highlights that Applied Materials hired two employees from Yitang's wholly-owned subsidiary, Mattson Technology, Inc. [1] - These employees are said to possess knowledge of Yitang's core technology regarding plasma generation and processing methods [1] - Evidence indicates that after their recruitment, Applied Materials submitted a patent application to the Chinese National Intellectual Property Administration, naming the two former employees as primary inventors [1]

Core Viewpoint - Beijing Yitang Semiconductor Technology Co., Ltd. (Yitang) has filed a lawsuit against Applied Materials, Inc. (AMAT) for allegedly misappropriating its trade secrets related to plasma sources and wafer surface treatment, claiming damages of 99.99 million RMB [1][2] Group 1: Legal Proceedings - Yitang has initiated legal action in the Beijing Intellectual Property Court, asserting that AMAT unlawfully acquired and utilized its core technology secrets and disclosed them through a patent application in China [1][2] - The lawsuit has been officially filed, but the court has yet to schedule a hearing [1] - Yitang claims that the lawsuit will not significantly impact its operations or production [1] Group 2: Technology and Intellectual Property - The technology in question involves high-concentration, stable, and uniform plasma used for wafer surface treatment, which is critical for Yitang's semiconductor processing equipment [1] - The two employees involved in the case were previously employed by Yitang's wholly-owned subsidiary, Mattson Technology, Inc. (MTI), and had signed confidentiality agreements regarding the technology [2] - Evidence suggests that AMAT submitted a patent application to the Chinese National Intellectual Property Administration, naming the two former MTI employees as primary inventors, thereby disclosing Yitang's trade secrets [2] Group 3: Impact on Business - Yitang alleges that AMAT's actions have caused significant damage to its intellectual property and economic interests, including promoting and selling products that utilize the misappropriated technology in China [2]

Core Viewpoint - Yitang Co., Ltd. has filed a lawsuit against Applied Materials for allegedly illegally obtaining and using its core technology secrets related to plasma sources and wafer surface treatment, claiming damages of RMB 99.99 million [1][5]. Group 1: Company Overview - Yitang Co., Ltd. specializes in the research, development, production, and sales of wafer processing equipment required for integrated circuit manufacturing [6]. - The company provides various integrated circuit manufacturing equipment and solutions, including dry stripping equipment, rapid thermal processing equipment, and dry etching equipment, making it one of the few domestic companies with diverse R&D capabilities in integrated circuit equipment [6]. - As of the report date, Yitang Co., Ltd. has a market capitalization of approximately RMB 67.623 billion [6]. Group 2: Legal Proceedings - The lawsuit claims that Applied Materials has violated the Anti-Unfair Competition Law of the People's Republic of China by illegally acquiring and using Yitang's technology secrets and disclosing them through a patent application [5]. - Evidence suggests that Applied Materials recruited two employees from Yitang's wholly-owned subsidiary, Mattson Technology, Inc., who were familiar with the core technology and had signed confidentiality agreements [4][5]. - The lawsuit has been filed, but the court has not yet scheduled a hearing, and the impact on Yitang's operations is not expected to be significant [5]. Group 3: Industry Context - Applied Materials is a leading global supplier of semiconductor and display equipment, holding over 22,000 patents and being the first international semiconductor equipment company to enter China [6]. - As of the report date, Applied Materials has a market capitalization of approximately USD 151.23 billion [6]. - Recently, Applied Materials announced its collaboration with Apple and Texas Instruments to strengthen the U.S. semiconductor manufacturing industry [6].