跳到主要內容區塊
:::

TIPS台灣智慧財產管理制度網站

:::

【法評】美國聯邦法院有關Defend Trade Secrets Act的晚近見解與趨勢

IIPC圖檔2018/03/01

 

主題

美國聯邦法院有關Defend Trade Secrets Act的晚近見解與趨勢

作者

創智中心(IIPC)陳彥嘉 研究員

法律評析

壹、前言

  「The Defend Trade Secrets Act」1(下稱「DTSA」)是美國近年營業秘密相關法律的重要里程碑2。對可能涉入美國聯邦法院(下稱「聯邦法院」)DTSA訴訟的臺灣企業而言,聯邦法院晚近有關DTSA下述議題的見解與趨勢,值得關注:(1)DTSA是否取代既有法下關於營業秘密的民事救濟與保護規範?(2)提起DTSA訴訟時應注意何「訴答標準」(pleading standard)?(3)聯邦法院會否輕易依單方聲請核發扣押令(下稱「單方扣押令」(ex parte seizure order))?及(4)DTSA是否適用於發生在DTSA生效前的不法行為。以下依序評析前揭議題,並於文末綜結前述見解與趨勢之啟示。

貳、DTSA沒有完全取代既有規範,聯邦法院審理時仍可能會參酌既有規範與過往判決見解

  DTSA明言,其未凌駕或取代其他聯邦法、州法有關營業秘密的民事救濟與保護規範3。DTSA立法前,美國有關營業秘密的民事救濟與保護規範,傳統上多仰賴各州州法4。DTSA賦予聯邦法院對於依DTSA提起的民事訴訟享有管轄權5,也開啟營業秘密所有人於營業秘密遭受不法竊用時,得在聯邦法院訴請民事救濟之可能6。此猶如在既有救濟途徑外,提供多一層保護與併行的救濟途徑7

  有見解指出,聯邦法院在審理DTSA訴訟、詮釋DTSA或分析個案上,多參酌DTSA立法前的州法與判決見解8。相關判決顯示,聯邦法院審理DTSA案件時,有參酌、援引、比較在地州法與DTSA,及過往判決見解的傾向9。由此可知,DTSA立法前的營業秘密既有規範與過往判決見解,在聯邦法院實務上仍具參考價值與影響力。


以上僅提供部分內容瀏覽,完整內容請下載【STLI法評APP】觀看
iOS版:點我下載
android版:點我下載

參考資料

1The Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016, Pub. L. No. 114-153, 130 Stat. 376 (May 11, 2016) (mostly codified in scattered sections of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1836-1839 [hereinafter the “DTSA”].

2Mark L. Krotoski, Greta L. Burkholder, Jenny Harrison & Corey R. Houmand, The Landmark Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016, at 3 (May 2016); Bradford K. Newman, Jessica Mendelson & MiRi Song, The Defend Trade Secret Act: One year Later, 2017-Apr Bus. L. Today 1, 1 (2017).

318 U.S.C. § 1838.

4S. Rep. No. 114-220, at 2 (2016) [hereinafter “S. Rep.”]; Kaylee Beauchamp, The Failures of Federalizing Trade Secrets: Why the Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 Should Preempt State Law, 86 Miss. L.J. 1031, 1033, 1045 (2017); Zoe Argento, Killing the Golden Goose: The Dangers of Strengthening Domestic Trade Secret Rights in Response to Cyber-Misappropriation, 16 Yale J. L. & Tech. 172, 177 (2014); James Pooley, The Myth of the Trade Secret Troll: Why the Defend Trade Secrets Act Improves the Protection of Commercial Information, 23 Geo. Mason L. Rev. 1045, 1045 (2016); John Conley, New Federal Trade Secret Act and Its Impact on Life Sciences, Genomics L. Rep.(Aug. 12, 2016); Newman, Mendelson & Song, supra note 2, at 1.

518 U.S.C. § 1836(c).

6Krotoski, Burkholder, Harrison & Houmand, supra note 2, at 7; Beauchamp, supra note 4, at 1033, 1045, 1072; Lily Li & andrea W. Paris, Help! What Are My (Immediate) Defenses to a Federal Trade Secret Claim?, 58-Sep orange County Law. 52, 52 (2016); Newman, Mendelson & Song, supra note 2, at 1.

7Conley, supra note 4.

8William M. Hensley, Post-Enactment Case Law Developments under the Defend Trade Secrets Act, 59-Jul orange County Law. 42, 44 (2017);
Robert B. Milligan & Daniel Joshua Salinas, Emerging Issues In the Defend Trade Secrets Act’s Second Year, Seyfarth Shaw LLP: Trading Secrets (June 14, 2017);
Jeffrey S. Boxer, John M. Griem, Jr., Alexander G. Malyshev & Dylan L. Ruffi, The Defend Trade Secrets Act – 2016 In Review, Carter Ledyard & Milburn LLP (Jan. 19, 2017);
Rajiv Dharnidharka, andrew D. Day & Deborah E. McCrimmon, The Defend Trade Secrets Act One Year In – Four Things We’ve Learned, DLA Piper (May 30, 2017);
Joshua R. Rich, The DTSA After One Year: Has the Federal Trade Secrets Law Met Expectations?, McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP, Vol. 15 Issue 3 Snippets 6, 7 (Summer 2017)

9HealthBanc International, LLC v. Synergy Worldwide, 208 F.Supp.3d 1193, 1201 (D.Utah 2016); Phyllis Schlafly Revocable Trust v. Cori, No. 4:16CV01631 JAR, 2016 WL 6611133, at *2-5 (E.D. Mo. Nov. 9, 2016); Panera, LLC v. Nettles, No. 4:16-cv-1181-JAR, 2016 WL 4124114, at *4 fn.2 (E.D. Mo. Aug. 3, 2016); Henry Schein, Inc. v. Cook, 191 F.Supp.3d 1072, 1077, 1079-1080 (N.D.Cal. 2016); Engility Corp. v. Daniels, No. 16-cv-2473-WJM-MEH, 2016 WL 7034976, at *8-10 (D. Colo. Dec. 2, 2016); M.C. Dean, Inc. v. City of Miami Beach, Florida, 199 F. Supp. 3d 1349, 1353-1357 (S.D. Fla. 2016); GTO Access Systems, LLC v. Ghost Controls, LLC, No. 4:16cv355-WS/CAS, 2016 WL 4059706, at *1 fn.1, *2-4 (N.D. Fla. June 20, 2016); Earthbound Corp. v. MiTek USA, Inc., No. C16-1150 RSM, 2016 WL 4418013, at *9-10 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 19, 2016); Kuryakyn Holdings, LLC v. Ciro, LLC, 242 F.Supp.3d 789, 797-800 (W.D. Wisc. 2017).

:::
目前瀏覽人數:1580723  聯絡我們
隱私權保護政策 網站服務條款 建議使用IE10以上版本瀏覽器瀏覽,最佳顯示模式1024*768
Copyright 2018 All Rights Reserved. 經濟部工業局「強化企業智慧財產經營管理計畫」專案委辦
返回頁首圖示
返回頁首