Meaning
Civil procedure rules in intellectual property disputes adjust the distribution of the burden of proof to prevent unfair difficulties for plaintiffs who lack access to a defendant’s internal processes. The trade secret burden shift occurs when a plaintiff presents a prima facie case showing that the defendant’s technology is identical to their own and that the defendant had the opportunity to acquire it, forcing the defendant to prove that they developed the technology independently. This adjustment balances the litigation process in trade secret cases.
Evidentiary Rule
Plaintiffs are spared the need to provide direct, hard-to-obtain evidence of the actual act of theft within the defendant’s private facilities. Instead, they must focus on proving access and substantial similarity.
Judicial Application
Courts apply this rule once the plaintiff satisfies the preliminary evidence threshold under the Anti-Unfair Competition Law. The defendant must then produce verifiable evidence, such as development logs, design diaries, or licensing agreements, to demonstrate the independent origin of their product or process. If the defendant cannot provide this proof, the court infers that the technology was misappropriated from the plaintiff.
This mechanism reduces the risk that defendants can escape liability simply by keeping their internal operations hidden from public view.
Procedural Benefit
Foreign and domestic companies benefit from this shifting rule during litigation by using their strong initial evidence to compel disclosure. This leverage often leads to earlier settlements or more favorable court judgments in trade secret disputes.
