If a trade secret infringement is sought, the specific extent and criteria of the trade secret

In seeking a prohibition of infringement of trade secrets, the trade secrets should be specifically identified as far as possible to the extent that it does not infringe upon the secrecy of the court’s trial and the other party’s right to defense. Whether to specify the trade secrets to a certain extent should be determined by taking into account various circumstances, such as the content and nature of the individual information claimed as the trade secrets, the details of the information publicly known in the relevant field, the specific form and nature of the infringement of trade secrets, the details of the claim

Article 2 subparag. 2 and 3 of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act and Article 10 of the same Act

Lee Past Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Barun, Attorneys Park Jae-min et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Respondent 1 and 2 others

Seoul High Court Order 2010Ra384 dated August 1, 2011

The reappeal shall be dismissed. The costs of the reappeal shall be borne by the petitioner.

The grounds of reappeal are examined.

1. As to the first ground for reappeal

A. In seeking a prohibition of infringement of trade secrets, the trade secrets must be specifically identified to the extent that it does not infringe upon the secrecy of the court’s trial and the other party’s right to defense. Whether to specify the trade secrets to a certain extent should be determined by considering various circumstances, such as the content and nature of the individual information claimed as the trade secrets, the details of the information publicly known in the related field, the specific form and prohibition of the infringement of trade secrets, and the relationship between the person holding the trade secrets and the other party

B. We examine the above legal principles and records.

The “information of this case” in the holding of the court below asserted as trade secrets in this case refers to the production technology information, such as the composition ratio of satch salt rates, the synthetic reaction data of salt rates, the manufacturing method of an isolated satise satis, the distribution method of non-satise satis satiss, the method of inspection of net level of raw materials, the method of establishing shooting conditions and testing, the method of mixing salt rates using the mixed process machinery, such as Henenm mixing, the method of mixing salt rates using the automatic satis, the method of paying salt rates, the method of spraying salt rates using the automatic satis satis, and the method of removing salt rates using the satis satis (the “technical information of this case”) and the “business information of this case” related to the type, source, purchase price, quantity of raw materials, trends of transaction parties related to the quality control of raw materials, etc. (the “business information of this case”).

However, the respondent did not produce salt, but imported salt itself in China, and sold it as a single product, or sold it as a simple half-yearly process until the color desired for the salt, and does not have any high-level salt production technology or quality control technology. The production technology information or quality control technology information held by the applicant is an information that can be easily sought by anyone on the Internet website of other companies that produce soft salt or emulgating agents, or is already standardized on internationally recognized standards. The information held by the applicant related to the business information of this case is merely an information that can be easily sought by anyone on the Internet website, and some materials corresponding thereto were submitted. Nevertheless, the applicant did not submit any supporting materials to the effect that the information of this case is stored in the applicant company in the form of a database, such as numerical data and business manual, but did not specifically assert or specify any different publicly known information claimed by the respondent.

If so, although the respondent asserts that the information of this case is generally, generally, generally, and abstractly stated, it cannot be seen that the difference between the publicly known information is not known, the court did not clearly specify and explain the information of this case so that the applicant can be differentiated from the publicly known information, and the court cannot determine whether the information of this case constitutes a trade secret, and the respondent cannot act as a proper defense because the specific contents of the trade secret cannot be known. Thus, the trade secret of this case cannot be seen as properly specified.

C. The judgment below to the same purport is just, and there is no error of exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or of misapprehending the legal principles on the specification of trade secrets.

2. As to the second ground for reappeal

Examining the reasoning of the order of the court below in light of the records, the court below was just in holding that the respondent used or disclosed the information of this case on the grounds as stated in its reasoning, and there were no errors by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal principles on trade secrets.

3. As to the third ground for reappeal

Examining the reasoning of the order of the court below in light of the records, the court below is just in holding that the respondent's excessive form product constitutes "goods that imitate the usual form of goods like the goods of this case as stated in the judgment of the court below (C. I. 1. F. 393 Ganul)" and the sales act does not constitute an unfair competition act under Article 2 subparagraph 1 (i) of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act. There is no error of law by violating logical and empirical rules and exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, or by misapprehending the legal principles as to the unfair competition act under the above provision.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the reappeal is dismissed, and the costs of reappeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Poe-dae (Presiding Justice)