| 英文摘要 |
The intellectual property rights of the electronics device industry are uniquely characterized by the extreme difficulty of evidence collection in infringement cases. Sales in this industry often occur in a B2B (Business to Business) model, involving the sale of production or auxiliary production equipment. Once equipment is sold to a factory, even if it infringes upon a competitor’s intellectual property rights, the competitor cannot freely enter the factory to collect evidence, especially in high-tech manufacturing with strict controls over cameras and memory access. Reviewing Taiwan’s 9 companies of electronic device industry’s trade secret-related judgments from 2017 to August in 2023, only two cases resulted in convictions based on the leakage of trade secrets under specific provisions of the Trade Secrets Act. Most other civil and criminal judgments resulted in acquittal, dismissal, or settlement. Additionally, two judgments that presented evidence of used intellectual property rights were not accepted by judges due to insufficient evidence or unclear ownership. The National Security Law was amended in 2022, but it defined only a minimal portion of the electronics industry as within the scope of national core technologies, thus excluding most of the industry. The U.S. Economic Espionage Act targets espionage by foreign governments or their agents without addressing the misuse of trade secrets. California’s laws against computer data access and fraud were not designed for economic espionage by foreign governments but have helped the world’s largest photolithography equipment manufacturer prevent Chinese companies from stealing its trade secrets for competition. |