營業秘密侵害之不作為請求之研究

Abstract

營業秘密侵害之不作為請求，可保護營業秘密所有人的營業秘密，排除已經發生的營業秘密侵害，或者是防止可能發生的營業秘密侵害，惟此不作為請求同時會限制被禁止特定行為之人的自由權益。 為了實現平衡保護雙方權益的價值，有賴於規範依據是否成立之判斷與相關規範的解釋適用。規範依據依照來源是否為當事人間約定，可分為「意定依據」與「法定依據」。本文係針對意定依據中的契約約定與法定依據中的營業秘密法第11條第1項規定，進行成立要件與法律效果的討論。 基於契約約定所主張的不作為請求，其成立要件的關鍵在於條款有效性判斷，法律效果的關鍵則在請求不作為的範圍解釋。基於營業秘密法第11條第1項規定所主張的不作為請求，其成立要件的關鍵，除了實務判決中常見雙方當事人在爭執營業秘密的存否外，尚有是否有侵害之虞的認定，以及行為是否具有違法性的判斷；法律效果的關鍵則在於如何判斷法律效果的範圍與限制。 此外，關於契約約定和營業秘密法第11條第1項規定二種救濟途徑之間的競合關係，雖實務上有採互相獨立或互相影響等不同見解，惟考量契約約定和營業秘密法第11條第1項規定，兩者之內涵及相關規定不同，應該要採互相獨立見解，讓兩個規範依據各自發揮其功能。

The request for injunction of trade secret misappropriation could protect trade secret owners from trade secret misappropriation that has occurred or might happen. However, it also restrains the rights and interests of the counterparty whom the injunction is requested against. The fulfilment of balancing both parties’ conflicting interests depends on the determination of regulated criterion and the interpretation of related laws. Regulated criterion could be divided into voluntary criterion and statutory one, and this thesis is developed by focusing upon contractual agreements and Paragraph 1 of Article 11 of Taiwan Trade Secrets Act. Regarding the request based on contractual agreements, the key element is the validity of agreement, and the legal effects are evaluated through the interpretation of agreements. Regarding the request based on Paragraph 1 of Article 11 of Taiwan Trade Secrets Act, the three key elements are, respectively, whether there is a trade secret, whether there is a likelihood of misappropriation, and whether there is unlawfulness. The legal effect of the statutory injunction is to determine the scope and limitation. Furthermore, regarding the concurrence of contractual remedies and statutory remedies, there are different judicial opinions to present whether the above-mentioned remedies have mutual independence or mutual influence. Because two remedies have different concerns and function, the concurrence of two remedies should be mutual independence.