Case Focus
Final judgment rendered in the Longbai Group trade secret infringement case: the original defendants received maximum prison sentences of seven years and fines totaling RMB 32 million; civil claims of approximately RMB 1.3 billion are still pending
Genesis subsidiary ordered to pay RMB 382 million in damages for malicious trade secret infringement, and required to destroy all confidential materials and have all staff sign non‑infringement undertakings
Industry Developments
Jinan completes the province’s first trade secret pledge‑based financing transaction
Nanjing issues the first batch nationwide of 11 trade secret protection guidelines for key industries
Typical Cases
The Supreme People’s Court releases 2025 typical intellectual property cases of the people’s courts, including one trade secret case
The Supreme People’s Procuratorate releases typical cases on intellectual property protection by procuratorial organs, including two trade secret cases
Case Focus
Final judgment rendered in the Longbai Group trade secret infringement case: the original defendants received maximum prison sentences of 7 years and fines of RMB 32 million; civil claims of approximately RMB 1.3 billion are still pending
After more than three years of proceedings, the highly watched case involving the misappropriation of Longbai Group’s (SZ002601, share price RMB 17.59, market capitalization RMB 41.939 billion) core trade secrets relating to the chloride‑process titanium dioxide technology has finally reached a final criminal ruling.
On the evening of 24 April, Longbai Group issued an announcement stating that its controlling subsidiary, Yunnan Metallurgical Xinli Titanium Industry Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Yunnan Xinli”), had received a Criminal Ruling from the Yunnan Provincial Higher People’s Court, which rendered a final ruling in the case concerning the infringement of Yunnan Xinli’s trade secrets, dismissing the appeals and upholding the original judgment.
According to the final ruling, three appellants (defendants in the court of first instance) who had previously held key positions at Yunnan Xinli, namely Liu Jianliang, Zhao Zequan, and Jiang Shuan, were ultimately sentenced, for the crime of infringing trade secrets, to fixed‑term imprisonment of seven years, seven years, and six years respectively, and fines totaling RMB 32 million. The court also ordered the continued recovery of more than RMB 4.67 million in illegal gains that had not yet been returned.
Genesis subsidiary ordered to pay RMB 382 million in damages for malicious trade secret infringement, and required to destroy all confidential materials and have all staff sign non‑infringement undertakings
A “battle” over trade secret infringement triggered by “poaching employees” finally came to an end at the end of 2025, leaving Genesis (300083.SZ, share price RMB 7.61, market capitalization RMB 12.67 billion) and its more than 90,000 shareholders facing damages of RMB 382 million.
More than six years earlier, industry peer Beijing Jingdiao Technology Group Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Beijing Jingdiao”) filed a lawsuit alleging that its former product manager, Mr. Tian, had taken away tens of thousands of drawings and technical secrets upon his departure. Mr. Tian subsequently joined Shenzhen Genesis Machinery Co., Ltd., a subsidiary of Genesis (hereinafter “Shenzhen Genesis”), which then used these technologies to rapidly launch competing products and seize market share.
In the first‑instance judgment, the court ordered the defendants to pay RMB 12.8 million in damages (including reasonable expenses), and both parties chose to appeal. At the end of 2025, the Supreme People’s Court, in its final instance, found that Shenzhen Genesis’s infringement of technical secrets was “manifestly malicious and particularly serious,” and increased the amount of damages to RMB 382 million—30 times the previous amount.
On the evening of 31 March, Genesis released its 2025 annual report: annual operating revenue reached RMB 5.32 billion, up 15.53% year‑on‑year; however, net profit attributable to the parent company was only RMB 143 million, a sharp year‑on‑year decrease of 39.63%. The above judgment had a negative impact of approximately RMB 306 million on the company’s net profit for 2025.
However, the cost of this litigation goes far beyond monetary compensation. According to the judgment obtained by a reporter from National Business Daily, the Supreme People’s Court required Shenzhen Genesis to destroy all drawings and technical documents containing the technical secrets at issue—whether in paper or electronic form—and, by way of internal notice, to inform the company’s shareholders, directors, supervisors, senior management and all employees of the judgment and the requirement to cease infringement, and to require the above personnel to sign confidentiality and non‑infringement undertakings regarding trade secrets.
Source: National Business Daily
Industry Developments
Jinan completes the province’s first trade secret pledge‑based financing transaction
Recently, Jinan has taken the lead in breaking the ice across the province by exploring a path for trade secret pledge‑based financing. Through this path, Wocam (Shandong) Vacuum Glass Technology Co., Ltd. successfully obtained RMB 10 million in credit support from the Jinan Branch of Bank of Beijing by pledging its core trade secrets. This path demonstrates the courage of Jinan’s market regulation and other departments to explore, pilot, and tackle problems in optimizing the business environment and promoting reform and innovation, showing both ingenuity and resilience as well as a spirit of in‑depth research.
Source: Jinan Market Regulation
Nanjing issues the first batch nationwide of 11 trade secret protection guidelines for key industries
Recently, the Nanjing Municipal Administration for Market Regulation officially issued 11 trade secret protection guidelines for 10 key industries, including smart grids, integrated circuits, and biomedicine, as well as the new artificial intelligence OPC business model. By adopting an “industry‑specific policy” approach, these guidelines provide targeted support for the protection of enterprises’ core competitiveness, help Nanjing build a “1026” advanced manufacturing cluster system, and promote deep integration of scientific and technological innovation with industrial innovation. This initiative is the first in the country to achieve “full coverage, specialization, and standardization” of trade secret protection for key industries and emerging business models.
Source: Nanjing Market Regulation
Typical Cases
The Supreme People’s Court releases 2025 typical intellectual property cases of the people’s courts, including one trade secret case
On 20 April 2026, the Supreme People’s Court held a press conference for the 2026 Intellectual Property Publicity Week. At the press conference, Tao Kaiyuan, Vice President of the Supreme People’s Court, released the 2025 typical intellectual property cases of the people’s courts, including one trade secret case.
Criminal case of collusion between insiders and outsiders to unlawfully obtain trade secrets — case of Zhang et al. (fourteen persons) convicted of the crime of infringing trade secrets
[Basic Facts]
Zhang was formerly head of the RF chip development department of Shanghai Hai某 Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Hai Company”). After leaving Hai Company, he established Zun某 Communications Technology (Nanjing) Co., Ltd. and Shanghai Zun某 Communications Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter collectively “Zun Company”). Before and after the establishment of Zun Company, Zhang solicited Zhou and others who were then working at Hai Company to join Zun Company. These individuals jointly discussed and decided to develop chips of the same type as those of Hai Company. In order to shorten the R&D cycle, quickly complete tape‑out and mass production, and accelerate fundraising, under Zhang’s instructions, Zhou and three others continued to recruit Hai Company employees to join Zun Company. Gao and six others, knowing that Hai Company had adopted confidentiality measures, nevertheless, before and after their departure, independently or in collusion with other Hai Company employees, obtained Hai Company’s technical information for use in Zun Company’s chip development. During their employment at Hai Company, Zhao and Tu also, at the request of Zun Company, provided Zun Company with Hai Company’s technical information. After learning that Hai Company was preparing to file an infringement lawsuit, Zhang instructed Zhou and others to delete allegedly infringing data from servers, replace and destroy server hard drives, and arrange for employees to sign so‑called “letters of undertaking” in an attempt to conceal the illegality of the source of Zun Company’s chip development technical information. The Third Branch of the Shanghai Municipal People’s Procuratorate charged Zhang and thirteen others with the crime of infringing trade secrets and initiated a public prosecution before the Shanghai No. 3 Intermediate People’s Court.
[Judgment]
The Shanghai No. 3 Intermediate People’s Court, in the first instance, held that Zhang and others, knowing that Hai Company had strict confidentiality measures for its trade secrets and that they, as external personnel, had no right to access such trade secrets, nevertheless, by explicit or implicit means, induced Hai Company’s internal employees with high remuneration to illegally provide corresponding trade secrets to external personnel by browsing, downloading, copying, taking screenshots and other methods. This conduct constituted joint action to obtain the trade secrets of the right holder, Hai Company, by improper means, with particularly serious circumstances, and their acts all constituted the crime of infringing trade secrets. In this case, the investigative authority had engaged an asset appraisal firm to assess the discounted value of the reasonable royalty for the technical information involved at more than RMB 317 million, which was reasonable and could be used to determine the amount of loss. In determining liability, the court considered that Zhou and two others, as senior managers of Zun Company, played organizational, managerial, and directing roles in the entire joint criminal activity, and that the chip components were indivisible and closely connected. These three not only participated in and managed the parts for which they were respectively responsible, but also cooperated and coordinated with professionals in other fields on design issues. Therefore, these three, as principal offenders, should also bear responsibility for all the consequences of the crime. In addition, taking into account each defendant’s status and role in the joint crime, the amount corresponding to the trade secret points involved, whether and when they joined Zun Company, their positions and powers, salary income, and shareholding, the court rendered a judgment convicting all fourteen defendants of the crime of infringing trade secrets and imposing corresponding criminal penalties. The first‑instance judgment has become legally effective.
[Typical Significance]
This case is a typical case involving the protection of trade secrets in cutting‑edge technologies. The judgment accurately addresses issues such as the characterization of each defendant’s conduct in the crime of infringing trade secrets and the criteria for determining reasonable royalties, and severely punishes the conduct of departing employees who, by improper means, appropriate others’ innovative achievements, thereby demonstrating the people’s courts’ firm determination to strictly protect scientific and technological innovation achievements in accordance with the law.
Source: Supreme People’s Court
The Supreme People’s Procuratorate releases typical cases on intellectual property protection by procuratorial organs, including two trade secret cases
On 22 April, the Supreme People’s Procuratorate released ten typical cases on intellectual property protection handled by procuratorial organs, covering criminal, civil, administrative, and public interest litigation functions in the field of intellectual property, and also reflecting functions such as criminal cases with attached civil actions and integrated punishment of false litigation. These cases collectively showcase the effectiveness of comprehensive performance of duties by intellectual property procuratorates. Among them are two typical trade secret cases.
Case of Wang A, Wang B and another person (three persons in total) infringing trade secrets
[Basic Facts]
Jiangsu Tian某 Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Tian Company”) is mainly engaged in the R&D, production, and sale of nanomaterials (carbon nanotubes, graphene) and their composite materials. After years of intensive R&D, the company developed the “7000” and “9200” carbon nanotube catalyst formulas and preparation processes. To protect the relevant technical secrets, the company adopted a series of confidentiality measures, such as physical isolation of R&D premises, access control authorization for production sites, and dedicated use of company computers and email accounts, strengthening management throughout the entire process, and signed Confidentiality Contracts and Confidentiality and Non‑Competition Agreements with relevant employees, specifying confidentiality obligations and liabilities.
Wang A, Wang B, and Wang C were all former employees of Tian Company. From June 2012 to June 2019, during their employment, the three were respectively responsible for experimental operations and production of catalysts and conductive pastes, mastered the “7000” and “9200” catalyst formulas and preparation processes, and owed confidentiality obligations regarding the company’s technical information. In September 2021, the three joined Inner Mongolia Chang某 Nano Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Chang Company”), where Wang A served as general manager, Wang B as production director, and Wang C as R&D engineer. In violation of the confidentiality agreements signed with Tian Company, the three took away the “7000” and “9200” catalyst formulas and preparation processes without authorization and provided them to Chang Company for the production of similar products. After joint discussion, they used the above catalyst formulas and preparation processes to apply for patents, resulting in the disclosure of Tian Company’s technical secrets. Appraisal confirmed that the “7000” and “9200” technical information claimed by Tian Company was not known to the public before the publication date of the patent applications. Evaluation determined that the commercial value of the above technical information was RMB 19.5672 million and RMB 17.8568 million respectively, totaling RMB 37.424 million.
[Typical Significance]
Procuratorial organs should effectively fulfill their responsibilities in serving innovative development, proactively strengthen ties with innovative enterprises, closely align with enterprises’ needs for the rule of law, and lawfully punish crimes involving infringement of key core technologies, thereby creating a sound legal environment for enterprises’ innovative development. In handling criminal cases of infringing trade secrets, where the trade secrets involve overall technical solutions formed by specific combinations of formulas, parameters, and other information, procuratorial organs should comprehensively examine appraisal opinions, publicly available literature in relevant fields, and other evidence on file, and, where necessary, may consult industry experts or invite technical investigators to provide assistance, in order to comprehensively assess whether the overall technical solution is not known to the public. Attention should be paid to reviewing the scientific soundness and reasonableness of the methods used to assess the commercial value of technical secrets, strengthening communication with appraisal institutions on key issues such as method selection, evaluation parameters, and calculation bases, so as to accurately determine the value of trade secrets. Procuratorial organs should sort out problems existing in enterprises’ intellectual property protection, put forward procuratorial recommendations to help enterprises improve governance mechanisms, and enhance the level of intellectual property protection.
Case of Tian illegally providing trade secrets to an overseas entity
[Basic Facts]
The business scope of Company X mainly includes manufacturing, probing, and testing of semiconductor (silicon wafers and various compound semiconductor) integrated circuit chips, as well as development and design services related to integrated circuits. To protect relevant trade secrets, Company X adopted confidentiality measures such as signing labor contracts with confidentiality clauses with employees, organizing employees to participate in information security and confidentiality training, prohibiting mobile phones from being brought into office areas, and controlling folders and internet access permissions.
Tian joined Company X in July 2002 and served as a senior manager in the raw material procurement department from March 2024 to June 2024, with authority to access Company X’s business information such as silicon wafer procurement. On 10 March 2024, Shanghai Tong某 Investment Consulting Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Tong Company”), commissioned by overseas institution A Consulting Company, invited Tian to participate in a paid consulting activity via internet teleconference. Knowing that the consulting party was an overseas institution, Tian nevertheless accepted the paid consulting activity arranged by Tong Company and, during the consultation, provided business information on Company X’s 2022 silicon wafer procurement, including categories of raw material procurement, suppliers, and procurement ratios, thereby illegally obtaining more than RMB 3,600. The relevant consultation records were transmitted via the internet to A Consulting Company.
Appraisal confirmed that the 2022 silicon wafer procurement information claimed by Company X constituted business information not known to the public; the information on Company X’s 2022 silicon wafer procurement that Tian illegally provided to the overseas entity was substantially identical to the above business information.
[Typical Significance]
Criminal acts of stealing, spying, buying, or illegally providing trade secrets to overseas entities seriously undermine enterprises’ motivation for independent R&D and innovation and threaten national security. In handling criminal cases involving infringement of trade secrets in key core technology fields, procuratorial organs should fully implement the holistic view of national security, strictly punish overseas commercial espionage activities in accordance with the law, effectively safeguard national science and technology security and economic security, and escort the development of new quality productive forces. They should accurately grasp the criteria for business information constituting trade secrets, focusing on whether the business information essentially reflects an enterprise’s important market strategies such as cost control, sales strategies, and development paths. They should comprehensively examine the original data corresponding to the confidential information, the information management system carriers, and investigate and verify the right holder’s management and use of the confidential information and the suitability of the confidentiality measures adopted, prudently assessing the value of the confidential information. In cases where overseas institutions commit trade secret infringement through domestic consulting companies, procuratorial organs should strengthen substantive review of overseas institutions, assess and analyze the characteristics of overseas elements, thoroughly investigate the leakage path of the information involved, and lawfully characterize conduct that is nominally commercial consulting but in essence illegal disclosure as criminal, thereby building a higher‑level security barrier.
Source: Supreme People’s Procuratorate
Shanghai High People’s Court releases typical cases on trade secret protection handled by Shanghai courts
Source: Shanghai High People’s Court
Beijing High People’s Court releases 2025 typical cases of Beijing courts on services and safeguards for the development of new quality productive forces, including one trade secret case
Pre‑litigation act preservation case concerning a dispute over infringement of technical secrets involving biopharmaceutical data
[Case Brief]
The applicant, Company Y, is a biopharmaceutical company dedicated to developing tumor antigen mRNA therapeutic vaccines and tumor antigen‑specific cell therapies. The respondents, Liang and Wu, were formerly senior technical personnel of the applicant and had signed labor contracts and confidentiality agreements with the applicant. On 20 June 2025, the applicant decided to disband the mRNA project R&D team. On 30 June, the applicant issued Notices of Termination of Labor Contracts to the two respondents. Between 20 and 30 June 2025, without authorization, the two respondents copied large amounts of technical information relating to Company Y’s new drug R&D projects, including R&D plans and experimental data (collectively, the “technical secrets at issue”), and transferred such information into their personal possession by sending it via WeChat, uploading it to Baidu Cloud and third‑party servers, and using USB flash drives for mobile storage. Respondent Liang also directly described the new drug R&D project at issue in his publicly available resume and claimed to have led and been familiar with the project. The applicant filed a pre‑litigation application for act preservation, alleging that the two respondents had obtained the technical secrets at issue by theft and that the matter was urgent, and requested an order prohibiting the two respondents from disclosing, using, or allowing others to use the R&D plans, experimental data, and other technical secrets at issue relating to the new drug R&D project.
Upon examination, the court held that the preliminary evidence submitted by Company Y could preliminarily prove that the technical secrets at issue were likely to satisfy the requirements of secrecy, confidentiality, and value; the two respondents admitted that they had obtained the technical information at issue but argued that this was for legitimate rights‑protection purposes. Therefore, it was highly likely that the two respondents’ acquisition of the technical secrets at issue without Company Y’s authorization constituted infringement of technical secrets. Liang’s mention in his publicly available job‑seeking information that he had been responsible for the new drug project at issue indicated that the positions he was seeking were highly likely to match the technical secrets at issue in his possession; after leaving the company, Wu was also highly likely to engage in work in related fields. Once the two respondents successfully found new employment, the technical secrets at issue would be highly likely to be disclosed to Company Y’s competitors or used without authorization in other companies’ related drug R&D, and thus the application met the requirement of urgency. If the technical secrets at issue were illegally disclosed, they would directly enter the public domain and permanently lose their secrecy, significantly increasing the damage to Company Y; therefore, the application met the requirement of “irreparable harm.” The two respondents admitted that they had deleted the files containing the technical secrets at issue, which indicated that they did not need to use the technical secrets at issue for profit. If act preservation measures were not taken, the damage to Company Y would clearly exceed the damage to the two respondents caused by such measures. As Company Y had already provided security for the application, the court found that Company Y’s pre‑litigation application for act preservation complied with the law and granted its application, ordering the two respondents not to disclose, use, or allow others to use the technical secrets at issue. After the pre‑litigation act preservation ruling was made, the two respondents did not apply for reconsideration, and the ruling has become effective.
[Typical Significance]
This case is a typical pre‑litigation act preservation case involving technical secrets in the form of data in the biopharmaceutical field. In line with the special needs of innovation protection in the biopharmaceutical industry, the court clarified the criteria for determining “urgent circumstances” in disputes over pharmaceutical technical secrets, reasonably balanced the protection of rights with the interests of the respondents, and at the same time sent a clear signal to society that the judiciary will severely crack down on infringement of technical secrets in the pharmaceutical field, thereby strengthening intellectual property protection in the pharmaceutical sector and providing solid judicial safeguards for the high‑quality development of the biopharmaceutical industry.
Source: Beijing High People’s Court
