“必沃”技术秘密许可使用合同纠纷案——商业秘密刑民交叉案件的处理

  Case Analysis

Ningbo Cixing Co., Ltd. v. Ningbo Beworth Textile Machinery Co., Ltd.

“必沃”技术秘密许可使用合同纠纷案——商业秘密刑民交叉案件的处理

Docket No.： 333, second instance (终), civil case (民), (2019) IP Court of the Supreme People's Court (最高法知)

【案号】（2019）最高法知民终333号

Basic Facts

案情介绍

Ningbo Cixing Co., Ltd. ("Cixing") believed that the act of Ningbo Beworth Textile Machinery Co., Ltd. ("Beworth") in using the technical drawings Cixing had required be kept confidential to produce flat knitting machines had violated contractual agreements and infringed on the trade secrets of Cixing, and thus appealed to the court.  Ningbo Municipal Public Security Bureau of Zhejiang Province opened an investigation into matters related to the alleged infringement of trade secrets by Beworth. The court of first instance held that the facts investigated by the Ningbo Municipal Public Security Bureau of Zhejiang Province covered the relevant contents of the agreement and drawings involved in the case, and ruled that the case should be transferred to the public security organ for processing. Beworth refused to accept the judgment and appealed to the Supreme People's Court. The Supreme People's Court held in the second instance that this case was a contractual litigation case filed by Cixing for the breach of contract by Beworth, and it was a legal contractual relationship of technology secret licensing. Whereas, the suspected infringement of trade secrets by Beworth as investigated by Ningbo Municipal Public Security Bureau was a legal infringement relationship where Beworth was suspected to have infringed on the trade secrets of Cixing. The legal relationships involved in the two were different. They were not based on the same legal relationship arising from the same legal facts, but related to economic disputes and suspected economic crimes, respectively, only that the facts involved in the two were overlapped. The court of first instance should transfer to the Ningbo Municipal Public Security Bureau the suspected criminal clues and materials that were implicated in but not of the same legal relationship with this case, and also continue to hear the contractual disputes over the use of technology secret licensing involved in this case. The Supreme People's Court thus ruled that the first instance ruling should be revoked, and directed the court of first instance to hear the case.

宁波慈星股份有限公司（以下简称慈星公司）认为宁波必沃纺织机械有限公司（以下简称必沃公司）违反协议约定，利用慈星公司要求保密的技术图纸生产横机设备的行为，侵害了慈星公司的商业秘密，遂诉至法院。浙江省宁波市公安局针对必沃公司涉嫌侵犯商业秘密罪有关事项立案侦查。一审法院认为，浙江省宁波市公安局侦查的事实涵盖了涉案协议和图纸相关内容，故裁定移送公安机关处理。必沃公司不服，向最高人民法院提起上诉。最高人民法院二审认为，本案系慈星公司以必沃公司违反合同约定为由所提起的合同之诉，系技术秘密许可使用合同法律关系。而浙江省宁波市公安局所立案侦查的必沃公司涉嫌商业秘密犯罪，系必沃公司涉嫌侵犯慈星公司商业秘密的侵权法律关系。二者所涉法律关系不同，并非基于同一法律事实所产生的法律关系，分别涉及经济纠纷和涉嫌经济犯罪，仅是二者所涉案件事实具有重合之处。一审法院应将与本案有牵连，但与本案不是同一法律关系的犯罪嫌疑线索、材料移送浙江省宁波市公安局，但也应继续审理本案所涉技术秘密许可使用合同纠纷，故裁定撤销一审裁定，指令一审法院审理。

Typical Significance

典型意义

This case showcased the in-depth implementation of the central government's judicial policy requirements on the protection of property rights and the rights and interests of entrepreneurs, and on the construction of a good rule of law business environment, and clarified the principle of dealing with criminal and civil cross cases of trade secrets, which not only prevented civil litigants from interfering with the normal conduct of civil proceedings on the grounds of suspected crimes, ensured the fair and timely handling of civil cases, but also prevented public security organs from refusing to file the relevant criminal cases on the grounds of economic disputes and thus leading to the confusion of criminal and civil liabilities and affecting judicial justice and authority.

该案深入贯彻中央关于保护产权及保护企业家权益、构建良好法治营商环境的司法政策要求，明确了商业秘密刑民交叉案件的处理原则，既避免了民事诉讼当事人以涉嫌犯罪为由干扰民事诉讼程序的正常进行，保证民事案件的公正和及时处理，也避免了公安机关以经济纠纷为由拒绝刑事立案，导致刑事责任与民事责任混淆，影响司法公正和权威。

英文投稿及市场合作：

[e-mail]

18911449529（微信同号）

往期推荐