专家意见的证据属性及审查规则的构建——以技术类商业秘密案为研究视角

The Evidentiary Nature of Expert Opinions and the Construction of Review Rules—From the Perspective of a Technology-Related Business Secret Case Study

摘要: 技术类商业秘密案件中，秘点界定、非公知性证明、同一性比对等技术事实认定的专业性极强，鉴定意见因资质管理混乱、专业适配偏差、鉴定费用高及程序刚性等固有缺陷，难以满足司法实践需求。专家意见作为替代方案，虽能够解决上述问题，但因非法定证据类型，存在审查规则缺失、采信标准不一的困境。专家意见证据类型的法定化具备扎实的法理基础、丰富的实践经验及积极的成本效应，将其确立为独立的法定证据类型势在必行。文章立足技术类商业秘密案件的特殊性，从形式与实质两个维度构建专家意见审查规则：形式层面聚焦启动程序、检材处置、专家选任及回避程序的合规性审查；实质层面围绕秘点精准性、非公知性科学性、同一性准确性展开实质化判断，旨在通过体系化规则设计，规范专家意见的生成与采信，破解技术事实认定难题，为商业秘密司法保护提供更具实效性的制度支撑。

Abstract: In technology-related trade secret cases, the determination of technical facts such as the definition of secret points, the proof of non-publicity, and the comparison of identity is highly specialized. Due to inherent flaws such as chaotic qualification management, professional mismatch, high appraisal fees, and rigid procedures, expert opinions are difficult to meet the demands of judicial practice. Although expert opinions can solve the above problems as an alternative solution, they are not a legally recognized type of evidence, which leads to the predicament of missing review rules and inconsistent standards for acceptance. The legalization of expert opinion as an evidence type has solid legal basis, rich practical experience and positive cost-effectiveness. It is imperative to establish it as an independent legal type of evidence. This article, based on the particularity of technology-related trade secret cases, constructs review rules for expert opinions from both formal and substantive dimensions: the formal level focuses on the compliance review of the initiation procedure, the handling of materials, the selection and recusal of experts; the substantive level conducts substantive judgments around the accuracy of secret points, the scientific nature of non-publicity, and the accuracy of identity comparison. The aim is to standardize the generation and acceptance of expert opinions through systematic rule design, solve the problem of technical fact determination, and provide more effective institutional support for the judicial protection of trade secrets.