2025年全球商业秘密保护领域关键进展报告

Introduction This publication summarizes noteworthy 2025 legal developments in trade secret law in key centersof commerce throughout the world. Understanding these legislative and judicial developments canhelp trade secret owners maintain trade secret protection, guard against misuse of their trade secretsby others, and assert rights as necessary. Table of Contents Third Circuit Provides Guidance for Trade Secret “Use” and Impermissible Double Recoveries7District Court Requires Plaintiff to Choose Between Injunction and Full Damages Award7 KEY DEVELOPMENTS IN CHINA KEY DEVELOPMENTS IN GERMANY New Possibilities for Court Protection Orders in (all) German Civil Proceedings17Federal Labor Court, Judgment of October 17, 2024 – 8 AZR 172/2317Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf, Ruling of November 14, 2024 – 2 U 17/2418Lawyer Contact19 Secret Information21Commercial Value22Reasonable Protection Measures22 Trade Secrets as an Exception to the Right of Access to Public Administrative Documents24 ENDNOTES34 the motion, striking nine of 11 trade secrets. The district courtacknowledged that the state procedure did not govern, yetit applied that “reasonable particularity” rule “to nail down[Quintara’s] asserted trade secrets ... [and] permit [the court]to discern the reasonable bounds of discovery.”2 IDENTIFYING PROTECTABLETRADE SECRETS On appeal, the Ninth Circuit reversed the order striking theasserted trade secrets. The court explained that CUTSA’s dis-closure rule does not govern a DTSA claim and stated thatunder the DTSA, it is a question of fact whether a trade secrethas been sufficiently identified in a disclosure. Thus, “whethera plaintiff has sufficiently particularized a trade secret underDTSA is usually a matter for summary judgment or trial.”3 The Ninth Circuit held that the circumstances did not warrantthe harsh penalty of dismissal of Quintara’s claims as a sanc-tion for failure to comply with a pretrial order under FederalRule of Civil Procedure 37. Among other things, the NinthCircuit noted that the district court did not consider alterna-tives before striking Quintara’s trade secrets (including thatafter an opportunity for discovery on the identification oftrade secrets, the district court could have invited a motionfor summary judgment and, absent a genuine fact disputeas to whether the trade secrets were sufficiently particular-ized, could have granted summary judgment as to those tradesecrets). Accordingly, the Ninth Circuit held that it was error forthe district court to strike and functionally dismiss trade secretclaims as a discovery sanction as part of the trade secret dis-closure process.4 Ninth Circuit Finds that the Sufficiencyof a Trade Secret Disclosure in DiscoveryIs a Question of Fact Quintara Biosciences, Inc. v. Ruifeng Biztech, Inc.,149 F.4th 1081 (9th Cir. 2025) The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently decided a case ofsignificance regarding a plaintiff’s disclosure of its assertedtrade secrets under the Defend Trade Secrets Act (“DTSA”).Quintara Biosciences, Inc., a DNA-sequencing-analysis com-pany, brought suit in a California federal district court againstRuifeng Biztech, Inc., alleging misappropriation of tradesecrets under the DTSA.1At the outset of discovery, Ruifengmoved the court for a protective order to halt discovery untilQuintara further specified its trade secrets. Ruifeng made itsrequest consistent with California Code of Civil ProcedureSection 2019.210, which requires that a plaintiff identify its tradesecrets with reasonable particularity before obtaining discov-ery into a defendant’s technology. Quintarabuilds on prior Ninth Circuit cases stating that aplaintiff must sufficiently identify its trade secrets in order toprevail on the merits of a trade secret claim.See InteliClear,LLC v. ETC Glob. Holdings, Inc., 978 F.3d 653 (9th Cir. 2020);Imax Corp. v. Cinema Techs., Inc., 152 F.3d 1161 (9th Cir. 1998). While there was no California Uniform Trade Secrets Act(“CUTSA”) claim in the case, the district court cited Section2019.210 in ordering Quintara to further identify its tradesecrets. Ultimately, Quintara did not identify its trade secretsto Ruifeng’s satisfaction, and Ruifeng again moved to halt dis-covery. To end the discovery standoff, the district court gaveRuifeng a choice to either accept the disclosure and complywith discovery or move to strike the disclosure and acceptthe consequences if wrong. Ruifeng moved to strike the tradesecrets in the disclosure under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure12(f). Drawing on Section 2019.210, the district court granted The holding inQuintaradoes not resolve the question ofwhether a DTSA defendant can insist on a sufficient tradesecret identification before providing technical discovery. NordoesQuintaraspeak to the standard for pleading a DTSAclaim.Quintaramakes it clear that, for a defendant to prevailon grounds of insufficient particularity of a trade secret, thedefendant usually must wait for summary judgm