商业秘密侵权诉讼中的举证责任分配研究

Research on the Distribution of Burden of Proof in Commercial Secret Infringement Litigation

摘要: 商业秘密是企业的重要战略资源，但侵权诉讼中长期存在“举证难、维权难”的问题，举证责任分配规则是否科学、可操作，直接影响保护制度的实际效果。本文综合运用文献研究、案例分析、规范分析方法，考察我国商业秘密侵权诉讼举证责任分配的理论基础、现行规则及实践适用，重点剖析《反不正当竞争法》第三十九条确立的举证责任转移规则。研究发现，现行“权利人初步举证 + 涉嫌侵权人举证反驳”的框架虽已形成，但仍面临三重困境：秘密性的消极事实难以证明，保密性认定标准不统一；举证责任转移的适用范围与触发条件不够明确，被诉方的举证义务边界模糊；电子证据的固定与认定标准不一致，制约了证据效力。破解上述困境，需要立法与司法协同推进：立法上明确构成要件的举证标准和责任转移的具体范围，健全证据妨碍、电子证据与证据开示等配套制度；司法上通过指导性案例、司法解释和审判业务培训统一裁判尺度。唯有构建兼顾公平与效率、平衡双方举证能力的特殊举证责任分配规则体系，才能在有效救济权利的同时防止权利滥用。

Abstract: Trade secret is an important strategic resource for enterprises, but there is a long-term problem of “difficult proof and difficult rights protection” in infringement litigation. Whether the distribution rules of burden of proof are scientific and operable directly affects the actual effect of the protection system. This paper comprehensively uses literature research, case analysis, comparative research and normative analysis methods to examine the theoretical basis, current rules and practical application of the distribution of burden of proof in China’s trade secret infringement litigation, and focuses on the analysis of the transfer rules of burden of proof established in Article 39 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law. The study found that although the current framework of “preliminary proof by the right holder + rebuttal by the alleged infringer” has been formed, it still faces three dilemmas: the negative facts of confidentiality are difficult to prove, and the criteria for determining confidentiality are not uniform; the scope and trigger conditions of the transfer of the burden of proof are not clear enough, and the boundary of the defendant’s burden of proof is vague; the inconsistency between the fixation and identification standards of electronic evidence restricts the effectiveness of evidence. To solve the above dilemma, it is necessary to promote the coordination of legislation and judicature: to clarify the standard of proof of constitutive elements and the specific scope of responsibility transfer in legislation, and to improve the supporting systems such as evidence obstruction, electronic evidence and evidence discovery; judicially, the referee scale is unified through guiding cases, judicial interpretation and trial business training. Only by constructing a special burden of proof distribution rule system that takes into account fairness and efficiency and balances the ability of both parties to prove, can we prevent the abuse of rights while effectively relieving rights.