Core Viewpoint - The lawsuit filed by Qicai Chemical against Xianico involves a dispute over reputation rights, with the claimed amount reaching 53.31 million yuan, and the case is yet to be heard in court [1] Group 1: Background of the Case - The lawsuit stems from a nearly three-year-long commercial secret dispute, initiated by Xianico in December 2022, claiming that Qicai Chemical infringed on its production technology secrets related to high-performance organic pigments [2] - Xianico initially sought 200 million yuan in damages but withdrew the lawsuit in January 2024 without reason after Qicai Chemical requested judicial appraisal [2] - In June 2024, Qicai Chemical filed a lawsuit to confirm non-infringement, which was dismissed due to Xianico's subsequent lawsuit on the same facts [2] Group 2: Technical Disputes and Market Issues - Qicai Chemical argues that the technology related to the DPP series pigments has been public knowledge for over 20 years, and Xianico's lawsuit aims to prevent Qicai from entering the market [3] - Xianico's reported production capacity for high-performance organic pigments is 650.4 tons per year, while its claimed annual sales for PR254 alone exceed 800 million yuan, suggesting a production scale that exceeds its licensed capacity by over ten times [3] - Xianico has not fulfilled the necessary environmental assessment procedures for its production of certain chemicals, raising concerns about potential ecological damage [3] Group 3: Key Developments and Legal Claims - Qicai Chemical discovered that Xianico's environmental assessment report from 2017 disclosed production technology information, which, if consistent with Xianico's claims, would negate the status of the information as a commercial secret [4] - Qicai Chemical has made three legal requests: to compel Xianico to publicly apologize, to seek compensation of 53.31 million yuan, and to have the defendants bear the litigation costs [4] - The company noted that there are no other significant lawsuits or arbitration matters that have not been disclosed, aside from the current case [4]