本文選題：商業(yè)秘密 + 原告　； 參考：《上海大學》2014年碩士論文

【摘要】：在商業(yè)秘密侵權訴訟當中，原告處于相對弱勢的地位，，舉證負擔過重，不確定因素多，所以其勝訴率非常低，并且我國目前對商業(yè)秘密訴訟程序保護的研究的廣度和深度相對不足，商業(yè)秘密還有可能在訴訟中因程序法的漏洞或人為的操作而進一步不適當?shù)乇还_，造成對原告的“二度傷害”。如不改善，長此以往，必將會挫傷商業(yè)秘密權利人的訴訟積極性，損傷公眾對于法律的責任。所以，筆者認為應該在商業(yè)秘密侵權訴訟中傾斜保護原告。 本文將從商業(yè)秘密侵權訴訟中的推定適用原則，舉證責任分配，禁令制度，不公開審判制度四個方面分別闡述如何對原告傾斜保護。全文共分為五個章節(jié)。 第一章主要是論述為什么保護原告：分析并比較了商業(yè)秘密侵權訴中當事雙方的地位，以此說明原告在訴訟中的相對弱勢地位，從而推出傾斜保護原告的必要性，并且也闡述了保護的限度，防止過度保護原告對被告不利。 第二章闡述了商業(yè)秘密侵權訴訟中的推定原則的適用問題，分析了推定的一般原則即“接觸、實質(zhì)相同并排除有效抗辯原則”對保護原告方面的不足，然后提出相關解決建議。最后通過列舉案例闡述了“不可避免泄露、使用原則”，并說明其對保護原告方面的有利作用。 第三章闡述了在舉證責任配置過程中如何保護原告，并把舉證責任倒置問題和保護原告問題結(jié)合起來探討，最后提出了關于舉證責任配置的幾點完善建議。 第四章闡述了商業(yè)秘密侵權訴訟的禁令救濟制度，旨在說明禁令救濟有利于保護原告。通過闡述英美兩個國家的商業(yè)秘密禁令救濟制度，以期完善我國的相關法律規(guī)定。 第五章闡述了商業(yè)秘密案件的不公開審理制度。不公開審理對商業(yè)秘密的原告保護具有非常重大的意義，能夠防止原告在商業(yè)秘密在訴訟程序當中受到二次侵害，但是我國對于不公開審理只提供了輪廓，內(nèi)容籠統(tǒng)，不利于實務操作。所以我國應該完善商業(yè)秘密不公開審理制度。
[Abstract]:In the trade secret infringement lawsuit, the plaintiff is in a relatively weak position, the burden of proof is too heavy, and there are many uncertain factors, so its rate of success is very low. Moreover, the scope and depth of the research on the protection of trade secret proceedings in our country are relatively insufficient, and trade secrets may be further improperly disclosed in litigation due to loopholes in procedural law or artificial operation. Cause "second injury" to the plaintiff. If not, it will dampen the litigation enthusiasm of the right holders of trade secrets and damage the public responsibility to the law. Therefore, the author thinks that should protect the plaintiff in the trade secret infringement lawsuit. This article will explain how to protect the plaintiff from four aspects: the principle of presumption application, the distribution of burden of proof, the system of prohibition and the system of closed trial. The full text is divided into five chapters. The first chapter mainly discusses why to protect the plaintiff: it analyzes and compares the position of both parties in the trade secret tort lawsuit, so as to explain the relative weak position of the plaintiff in the lawsuit, and thus put forward the necessity of inclined protection of the plaintiff. And also elaborated the protection limit, prevents the plaintiff to be disadvantageous to the defendant. The second chapter expounds the application of the presumption principle in the trade secret tort litigation, analyzes the deficiency of the general principle of presumption, that is, "contact, substantial identical and excluding the effective defense principle" to protect the plaintiff, and then puts forward some suggestions to solve the problem. In the end, the author expounds the principle of inevitable leakage and usage by citing cases, and explains its beneficial role in protecting the plaintiff. The third chapter expounds how to protect the plaintiff in the process of allocation of the burden of proof, and discusses the problem of inversion of the burden of proof and the protection of the plaintiff, and finally puts forward some suggestions on how to improve the allocation of the burden of proof. The fourth chapter expounds the injunction relief system of trade secret infringement litigation, aiming to explain that injunctive remedy is beneficial to the protection of plaintiff. By expounding the trade secret prohibition and remedy system in Britain and America, we hope to perfect the relevant laws and regulations of our country. The fifth chapter expounds the closed trial system of trade secret cases. The private trial is of great significance to the protection of the plaintiff of the trade secret, and can prevent the plaintiff from being infringed twice in the proceedings of the trade secret. However, our country only provides the outline for the closed trial, and the content is general. It is not conducive to practical operation. Therefore, our country should perfect the commercial secret closed trial system.
【學位授予單位】：上海大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2014
【分類號】：D922.294;D925.1

【參考文獻】

相關期刊論文 前10條

1 黃武雙;李進付;;再評北京精雕訴上海奈凱計算機軟件侵權案——兼論軟件技術保護措施與反向工程的合理緯度[J];電子知識產(chǎn)權;2007年10期

2 張玉瑞;商業(yè)秘密保護中的不可避免地泄露、使用原則 以百事可樂公司訴快克公司、雷蒙德案為例[J];法律適用;2005年04期

3 宋健;顧韜;;商業(yè)秘密知識產(chǎn)權案件若干問題研究[J];法律適用;2010年Z1期

4 張妮;王全興;;離職競業(yè)限制協(xié)議的效力問題探討——兼論商業(yè)秘密法律保護手段選擇[J];法學雜志;2011年10期

5 袁荷剛;;反思與重構:我國商業(yè)秘密立法之完善[J];法學雜志;2012年01期

6 黃武雙;;美國商業(yè)秘密保護法的不可避免泄露規(guī)則及對我國的啟示[J];法學;2007年08期

7 胡充寒;;我國知識產(chǎn)權訴前禁令制度的現(xiàn)實考察及正當性構建[J];法學;2011年10期

8 張媛;王威;周東威;何鐵軍;;商業(yè)秘密終局禁令救濟的期限——美國經(jīng)驗和借鑒[J];大慶師范學院學報;2013年02期

9 鄧堯;;論商業(yè)秘密民事訴訟的舉證責任分配[J];華南農(nóng)業(yè)大學學報(社會科學版);2007年04期

10 張麗霞;;商業(yè)秘密侵權行為證明困難的法律對策[J];河南社會科學;2011年05期

本文編號：1923183