论商业秘密侵权诉讼中证明责任之分配

On Allocating the Burden of Proof in Trade Secret Infringement Cases

对侵犯商业秘密行为提起的诉讼能否适用举证责任倒置的原则,我国现行法律尚未做出明确规定,司法实践中也出现过证明责任分配的两难选择;尽管商业秘密侵权行为系侵权人所为,只有侵权人才知道自己取得商业秘密的手段和途径,相对而言,被侵权人举证较难。但这种难度毕竟尚未达到影响商业秘密权利人基本的证明责任的承担。因此,在商业秘密侵权诉讼中不能实行举证责任倒置;权利人必须就合法拥有商业秘密、侵权人存在侵权行为、侵权人使用不正当手段获取商业秘密等方面进行举证。

The current Chinese laws have not expressly dential burden can be applied to the litigations over trade sec regulated whether the principle of inverted eviret infringements and resulted in the dilemma of allocating the burden of proof in the judicial practice. Notwithstanding that the trade secret infringement is committed by the infringer and only the infringer himself knows the means and approaches to acquire the trade secret, it is relatively harder for the infringed to produce the evidence. However, it is not so hard as to impact the right holder of trade secret to bear the basic burden of proof. Therefore, the principle of inverted evidential burden can not be applied to the litigations over trade secret infringements. The right holder shall produce the evidence about lawfully possessing the trade secret, the infringer committing the infringement, and the infringer＇ s use of improper means to acquire the trade secret and others.