Direct answer

You prove the secret, measures and a link; they may then have to explain independent development.

AUCL and SPC practice do not let a claimant win by saying ‘they copied us’. You must identify the information, show it is non-public and valuable, and show corresponding measures. Evidence that the defendant had access (employee, supplier, hack) and that their product or file is substantially the same can then require the defendant to prove a legitimate origin — independent development, reverse engineering of a public product, or a licensed source. If you never specified the secret, burden-shifting never starts. The evidence Quick Answer is how to build the file; this page is who must prove what.

The classification screen

4 questions before you choose the route.

This page identifies the right question and evidence. It does not determine the legal outcome on a reader’s facts.

01

Have you specified the secret and measures?

Without that, there is nothing to shift.

Prima facie
02

Can you show access plus identity of the result?

Employee path, supplier path, or a unique fingerprint in the copy.

Link
03

What lawful-source story might they run?

Clean-room, public domain, or a different customer list.

Defence
04

Are you asking a court to guess the secret?

Protective procedures exist; silence does not.

Disclose

Working rule: Map the regulated role before marketing or launch in China.

What changes the answer

The signal ledger.

These facts move the question beyond a label and into a product, money-flow and control analysis.

Signal
Ask the operating question
Why it changes the route
Unspecified secret
Is the pleading ‘our know-how’ with no list?
The case fails before any shift.
Identical bugs
Do unique comments or errors appear in their code?
That is the identity evidence that supports a shift.
Public product
Could they have reverse-engineered a lawfully bought SKU?
That is a classic lawful-source defence.
Prepare before you escalate

Bring a compact evidence docket—not a pitch deck.

Give a compliance team or counsel the operating facts that reveal the perimeter.

01Particularised listThe secret items you will stand on.
02Measures chronologyPre-leak corresponding measures.
03Access and identityHow they got it and why the output is the same.
04Anticipated defencesPublic domain, RE, independent development.
Common confusions

Questions people ask before they build.

Short answers for orientation. The right result can change with the service model and current rules.

Does the defendant have to prove they did not steal?

Not from a bare accusation. After you show secret, measures, access and substantial identity, they may need to show a legitimate source. The exact shift is fact- and court-sensitive.

Can we keep the secret entirely hidden from the court?

Usually no. You may seek confidentiality undertakings, not a secret trial with no particularisation.

Primary authorities

Reviewed sources support orientation, not a fact-specific assessment.

National laws database (NPC)
Anti-Unfair Competition Law (gov.cn)
Supreme People’s Court