民法典视域下侵犯商业秘密行为规则的反思与完善

我国《民法典》正式将商业秘密列入了知识产权的客体，并冠以专有的权利之名，体现了商业秘密权利化的趋势。商业秘密走向财产权保护模式不仅是基于《民法典》的规定，更在于财产权保护模式的优势。作为一种结构化的认知图式，财产权保护模式能够更好地平衡商业秘密保护和公共领域之间的关系，也更契合商业秘密保护的现实需求。在明确了这一前提的基础上，目前《反不正当竞争法》中关于侵犯商业秘密的相关规定与专有权的属性存在龃龉，不可不察。对侵犯商业秘密的手段要求具有不正当性和恶意第三人视为侵犯商业秘密的规定实际上并不符合专有权的逻辑，在实践中已被忽略和替代。对此，应当沿着专有权的观念对侵犯商业秘密行为的相关规则进行建构。具体表现为将侵犯商业秘密的行为规定为未经商业秘密权利人的同意，获取、披露、使用、许可他人使用商业秘密。用共同侵权的规则取代恶意第三人侵犯商业秘密的规则，同时建构善意获取人的相关制度。除此之外，应当明确侵犯商业秘密行为主观要件为过错，并且构建相应的限制条款。这既符合商业秘密作为一种专有权的权利属性，也有利于加强商业秘密的保护。

Reflection and Perfection of the Rules of Trade Secrets Infringement from the Perspective of the Civil Code

In the Civil Code of the People''s Republic of China, trade secrets are officially included in the object of intellectual property and named as the exclusive right. It reflects the trend of entitling trade secrets as intellectual property. The reason for choosing the property right mode as trade secrets protection mode is not only based on the provisions of the Civil Code, but also relies on the advantages of the property right protection mode. As a structured cognitive schema, the property right protection model can better balance the relationship between the protection of trade secrets and the public domain, and also better meet the practical needs of trade secrets protection. On the basis of clarifying this premise, we can find that there is a conflict between the relevant provisions on infringing trade secrets in the Anti-Unfair Competition Law and the attributes of exclusive rights. The requirements for the means of infringing trade secrets are not necessary. The provision that the third party is regarded as infringing trade secrets does not accord with the logic of exclusive rights, and has been ignored and replaced in practice. In this regard, on the premise of clarifying that the form of rights and interests can be separated from the mode of protection, the relevant rules of infringing trade secrets can be constructed along the concept of exclusive rights. Specifically, the act of infringing trade secrets is stipulated as obtaining, disclosing, using and licensing without the consent of the rights holders. The rule of joint infringement is used to replace the rule of intentional third party infringing trade secrets, while constructing the innocent acquirer rules. In addition, the subjective element of infringing trade secrets should be clearly defined as the principle of fault, and corresponding restrictive clauses should be constructed. This is not only in line with the right attribute of trade secrets as an exclusive right, but also conducive to strengthening the protection of trade secrets.