以使用事實證明營業秘密法第13條之2第1項之「意圖在境外使用」要件──以智慧財產及商業法院判決為中心

Proving the“Intent to Use Abroad”Element under Article 13-2, Paragraph 1 of the Trade Secrets Act by Evidence of Actual Use—A Review of Intel lectual Property and Commercial Court Decisions

營業秘密法於2003年將意圖在外國、大陸地區、香港或澳門使用，而有擅自取得、揭露或使用營業秘密之行為課予刑事責任。該「意圖」要件之證明近期經最高法院111年度台上字第3655號刑事判決之解釋而不要求實際使用。本文舉過往的智慧財產及商業法院判決來討論如何判斷「意圖」要件，該些判決可分為二類:類型一案例乃以「實際使用」證明「意圖」要件，而類型二案例所涉之相關事實可歸納為「實際使用之虞」。本文藉由美國法「統一營業秘密法」（Uniform Trade Secrets Act）的經驗來補強以「實際使用之虞」用於證明「意圖」要件之意義。本文從「意圖」要件之「使用」定義來討論「意圖」之認定，並主張營業秘密之「使用」本非以實際使用為準，「參考」亦屬使用。此係基於當營業秘密已經或有可能交到競爭者手中，該競爭者即使不實際使用，也可參酌來研發或定價，例如競爭者可能利用該資訊為以試錯方式研發的起始點。無論是技術資訊或營業用資訊皆屬競爭者可參考或使用，以與被害公司競逐相關市場。因此，即使未抓到被告實際使用之證據，當有營業秘密交付給競爭者或有被告承諾協助競爭者之證據時，即可認定被告之行為有滿足「意圖在境外使用」要件。

In 2003, a provision was introduced to the Trade Secrets Act to criminalize a person who, without authorization, acquires, discloses, or uses a trade secret with an intent to use such the trade secret in foreign jurisdictions, mainland China, Hong Kong, or Macau. The intent element was recently interpreted by the Supreme Court in Criminal Judgment Tai-Sheng No. 111- 3655 as requiring no proof of actual use of a trade secret. This article is intended to review past decisions of the Intellectual Property and Commercial Court to discuss how to determine the intent element. Those decisions can be categorized into two types. Cases of the first type involve proving the intent element by evidence of actual use, while cases of the second type have circumstantial evidence of likelihood of actual use. This paper is intended to draw a lesson from the American judicial practice which adopts the Uniform Trade Secrets Act and to extract some applicable ideas from the U.S. approach to supplement how to determine the intent element with proof of likelihood of actual use. This paper focuses on the interpretation of“use”within the intent element and asserts that“use”of a trade secret does not require actual use. It is sufficient to prove“use”by evidence of“referencing”a trade secret. This is because it is reasonable to infer that when a trade secret has been delivered to, or is likely to be sent to, a competitor, the competitor will either actually use such the information or consider it as a benchmark for research and development or pricing. One example is that a competitor may use such information as a starting point for its try-and-error R&D process. Based on the idea of referencing, a court may find a person guilty when such the person had delivered the stolen trade secret to the owner’s competitor or had wrongfully acquired such the information as he had previously promised such the competitor to assist the competitor’s product or technology development.