2017Da24113 Prohibition, etc. of Infringement of Trade Secrets

A Stock Company

1. B

2. C.

3. D;

4. E.

5. F;

Seoul High Court Decision 2014Na4592 Decided June 1, 2017

November 29, 2017

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

For reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court did not deem that the sales portion of the Radrying equipment among the Samsung Electronic Sales portion of Defendant B Co., Ltd. was in proximate causal relation with the Defendants’ trade secret infringement. In so doing, the lower court excluded the Plaintiff from calculating the amount of damages. In light of the records, the lower court did not err by violating the rules of evidence and failing

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

The lower court did not recognize damage to the sale of the remaining equipment on the ground that there is no evidence to acknowledge that the technical file of this case as indicated in the lower judgment was applied to the remainder of the Defendant’s equipment except for Radrying equipment. In light of the records, even if examining the records, the lower court did not err in its judgment by violating the rules of evidence, failing to exhaust

3. As to the third ground for appeal

Based on the circumstances indicated in its holding, the lower court determined that the Defendants’ act of infringing trade secrets contributed to the profit gained from the manufacturing and sale of the Defendant’s equipment was 3%. The determination of the fact-finding or ratio on the portion of contribution to trade secrets and the degree thereof belongs to the exclusive authority of the fact-finding court, insofar as it is deemed that it is considerably unreasonable in light of the principle of equity. In light of the facts acknowledged by the lower court, the lower court’s determination that the contribution ratio was 3% is not considerably unreasonable in light of the principle of equity

4. As to the ground of appeal No. 4, the purpose of prohibiting infringement of trade secrets is to prevent an infringer from taking advantage of the superior position of a fair competitor or time saving, and to enable the infringer to return the trade secrets to the original location if he did not have such infringement. Thus, the prohibition of infringement of trade secrets should be limited to the time limit necessary to ensure fair and free competition and to achieve the purpose of protecting personal trust relationship. In addition, the scope should be reasonably compared to the court’s decision regarding the content and difficulty of the trade secrets, the period and expenses required to obtain technical information of the person holding the trade secrets, the period and expenses required to maintain the trade secrets, the hours and methods necessary to obtain such technical information by independent development or reverse design, and the time necessary for the infringer or other fair competitors to obtain such technical information by the same legitimate method as the independent development or reverse design, if the infringer is an employee (including retirement), the period of duty or position subordinate to the employer, the degree of access to the trade secrets, the living or agreement within the employee, the freedom of activities of the person who was an employee, the freedom of occupation and physical rights, etc.

The lower court determined that it is reasonable to view that Defendant C’s period of protection as a trade secret of the instant technology file to the extent of three years from the date of retirement of the Plaintiff, taking into account the period required for the development of the instant technology file, expenses, and the period expected to be necessary for the infringer or other fair competitors to acquire technical information, such as the instant technology file, in an independent development or reverse design, etc.

In light of the above legal principles and records, the above judgment of the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the period of trade secret protection or by violating the rules of evidence.

5. Ground of appeal No. 5

For reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court dismissed the claim against prohibition of copyright infringement on the program files of this case on the ground that copyright infringement has been interrupted and there is no concern that such infringement will continue in the future. Examining the record in light of the records, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine as to concerns of copyright infringement, as

6. Conclusion

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

2. Judgment of the presiding judge

Justices Kim Yong-deok

Justices Kim In-bok, Counsel for defendant

Justices Park Sang-ok