論營業秘密侵害訴訟之事證開示

Discovery of Evidence in Trade Secret Civil Litigation

黃康軒(Kang-Hsuan Huang)

指導教授 ： 沈冠伶

國立臺灣大學/法律學院/法律學研究所/碩士(2015年)

https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU.2015.00616

摘要

智慧財產權蓬勃發展之際，營業秘密已然成為各國關注之焦點，我國營業秘密法於1996年公布施行，即將屆滿二十年，近年來更發生不少矚目案件，進而推動2013年營業秘密侵害行為刑罰化之立法。營業秘密受侵害之人亦得循民事訴訟程序解決紛爭，但向來卻因營業秘密之特性而使民事訴訟難以發揮定紛止爭之功能，此係因營業秘密侵害之事證資料難以蒐集、提出，致受侵害之人難能救濟其權利。又現行秘密保護程序是否能平衡兼顧兩造之訴訟權與財產權，亦應一併觀察。美國民事訴訟制度以事證開示程序為廣泛蒐集事證之工具，並輔以保護命令，避免營業秘密資訊於訴訟程序之不當揭露，故本文試以美國之事證開示程序與保護命令為研究對象，並觀察二者間之差異，以此做為我國法解釋論或立法論之借鏡，嘗試建構我國營業秘密侵害訴訟之民事訴訟程序。

在進入程序法之研究前，本文試從我國與美國對營業秘密所提供之實體法上保護為出發點，透過瞭解二國對於營業秘密保護現況，為後續程序法面向之檢討奠定基礎。在臺、美之實體規範比較上可以發現，凡符合法定要件之資訊均可作為營業秘密予以保護，侵害態樣多元，並得以民事訴訟救濟侵害，整體而論二國並無二致，且保護強度亦已足夠，故可進一步探究如何改善程序以實踐法律上之保護。

美國之營業秘密侵害訴訟適用聯邦民事訴訟規則之事證開示程序與保護命令制度，事證開示程序肯認訴訟上當事人得於進入庭審以前廣泛蒐集與訴訟有關之事證，當事人負有主動揭露之義務，亦得向對造或第三人請求開示事證資料，雖曾為詬病有制度濫用之情形，惟立法者亦漸漸修正制度，使法院得積極介入管理事證開示程序之進行。為避免營業秘密於事證開示階段為不當揭露，兩造當事人得協議或由法院裁量因案適宜之保護命令，尤其於涉及營業秘密侵害訴訟之事證開示爭議，雖法無明文，惟多數實務已肯認營業秘密應於事證開示階段先行具體特定，而賦予適切之秘密保護措施，以避免制度濫用、兼顧兩造之訴訟權與財產權。

觀察我國現行民事訴訟制度，早於2000年民事訴訟法之修正及2007年智慧財產案件審理法之制訂，即已強化當事人於起訴前或訴訟繫屬後之事證開示與秘密保護程序，制度層面已屬完善，故如何由法院依營業秘密侵害訴訟之特性與訴訟階段目的靈活操作現行制度，乃我國得向美國法學習之處。申言之，於營業秘密侵害訴訟之起訴前證據保全，法院於裁定准否之際的審查基準，應依是否為同業競爭關係而予以細緻化，決定適切之保全方法，或促進經他造同意之證據保全，貫徹當事人之程序主體性，並於向第三人聲請證據保全之情形，倘有洩漏第三人營業秘密之虞，應由聲請人為第三人提供損害賠償之擔保，避免第三人於訴訟繫屬前即損其利益；秘密保護程序亦應於對立性尚未彰顯時進行調整，儘量減少接觸營業秘密細節之可能，此目的得經由選任中立第三人或技術審查官達成，同時加強法院得於起訴前裁定秘密保護措施之權限，避免當事人之營業秘密在事案尚未明瞭之時受有損害。

訴訟繫屬後，由於對立性已顯現，應更注重兩造證明權與財產權之衡平，活用秘密保護措施。首先，立法者雖就營業秘密侵害訴訟之救濟困境增訂智審法第10條之1以改善現況，惟該條之解釋適用恐無法達成立法者之美意。鑑此，或可參酌美國於進行事證開示前之當事人具體特定義務，作為營業秘密侵害訴訟具體主張義務之運作方針。在秘密保護程序部分，為加強當事人提出事證之可能，法院應於證據調查階段活用我國之制裁手段，並容許最瞭解系爭案件之兩造共同提出秘密保持之建議方法，供法院於作成秘密保持命令時參酌或採用，在有適切之秘密保護程序配套下，方得收兩造當事人提出事證之效。

關鍵字

營業秘密侵害 ； 事證開示 ； 保護命令 ； 證據保全 ； 秘密保護

並列摘要

Trade secrets have been gaining attention globally, among other intellectual property rights. The Taiwan Trade Secret Act came into force in 1996. An amendment thereon, which mainly consisted of the inclusion of penalties for violation of the Trade Secret Act, was made in 2013 in response to urgent calls for strict penalties by enterprises. In Taiwan, the infringement of trade secrets can be resolved via civil proceedings. However, plaintiffs claiming infringement usually have difficulty proving the misappropriation of trade secrets, impeding plaintiffs’ ability to obtain remedies. Meanwhile, what is of more importance is to prevent further disclosure of trade secrets during civil proceedings. In the U.S. legal system, “Discovery” under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure has been widely used to collect evidence in civil cases. Besides, parties will typically obtain a “Protective Order” from the court to prevent disclosing any trade secrets or other proprietary information during the case. This thesis will introduce the concepts of “Discovery” and “Protective Order” under the U.S. regime and a comparison between the U.S. and Taiwan civil procedure system, with a focus on trade secrets civil litigation. This thesis will then propose improvements that can be made in under Taiwan legal system.

This thesis first introduces the protection of trade secrets from the perspective of substantive law, offering an overview of the current status of trade secret protection in the U.S. and Taiwan. In general, both the U.S. and Taiwan have been dedicated to reinforcing the protection of trade secrets through either legislative or judicial practices. Any information that satisfies the requirements of a trade secret can be legally protected, and any misappropriation of the information as such can be remedied via civil actions. Thus, the remaining issue is how to improve current procedure in order to facilitate greater protection of trade secrets in trade secrets civil litigation.

“Discovery” under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is a procedure for the parties to exchange and to collect information to be presented at trial. The rules of Discovery have been amended for the purpose of preventing fishing expeditions. Nowadays, judges will supervise the procedure while the parties are scavenging for evidence. A “Protective Order”, whether initiated by the parties or the court, has been of great use to prevent inappropriate disclosure of any trade secrets, whether owned by the parties or third parties, during Discovery. However, courts have been taking different approaches when dealing with discovery of allegedly infringed trade secrets in the Discovery process. A majority of courts have required the plaintiff to specify the misappropriated trade secrets at an early stage of the pretrial procedure. Protective measures are also taken by court to maintain the confidentiality.

The current Taiwan Code of Civil Procedure and Intellectual Property Case Adjudication Act allow the parties to gain access to evidence in trade secrets civil litigation. Amendments have been made to the above Acts to provide the parties with more effective protective measures. Therefore, the remaining issue will be how to utilize the regime according to the nature of trade secrets civil litigation and the purpose of different phases of the proceedings. As proposed in this thesis, if any party moves for preservation of evidence before the action is brought up, the court should consider the competition between the parties when making its decision, and this criterion should also apply when any party moves for protective measures before the action is initiated. In addition, in order to strike a balance between the need to examine trade secrets and the right to nondisclosure, the protective measures taken should prevent the disclosure of details of the alleged trade secrets before the parties. The court may, for instance, request an independent, neutral third party or the Technical Examination Officer to examine the trade secrets at issue.

The need to strike a balance between the parties’ property rights and their right to prove in trade secrets infringement cases remains significant after the lawsuit is filed. In an attempt to ease the plaintiffs’ burden of proof in trade secrets litigation, the legislators passed Article 10-1 of Intellectual Property Case Adjudication Act, but the effect of this Article still remains to be seen. This thesis thus proposes that the U.S. approach to specifying trade secrets may be applicable under Article 10-1. Besides that, to urge the parties to provide evidence relevant to the claim of infringement, the court may encourage the parties to agree on mutual protective measures or impose sanctions if any party or third party fails to fulfill its obligation to provide evidence.

並列關鍵字

trade secrets ； misappropriation ； trade secrets litigation ； discovery ； protective order ； protective measure ； preservation of evidence ； provide evidence

參考文獻

5. 陳武鍵（2012）。《我國營業秘密法之檢討》，嶺東科技大學財經法律研究所碩士論文，台中。

16. 最高法院98年度台抗字第170號民事裁定。

20. 最高法院99年度台抗字第133號民事裁定。

9. 智慧財產法院103年度民營訴字第2號民事判決。

1. 士林地方法院88年度重訴字第35號民事判決。