[Criminal/Unfair Competition Prevention Act/Trade Secrets] Acquittal: Nagoya District Court, March 18, 2022, 2017 (Kei-Wa) No. 427
Updated: 6 hours ago
Article information
Article type: Case note
Category: Unfair competition law
Topics: Trade secrets
First published on this website: 2026-11-01
Display and classification checked: November 2, 2026
Originally published on Ameblo: 2025-06-30 (Japan time). Full English translation.
[Criminal/Unfair Competition Prevention Act/Trade Secrets] Acquittal: Nagoya District Court, March 18, 2022, 2017 (Kei-Wa) No. 427, “Magnetic Sensor Wire Alignment Process Case”
(1) “It amounts merely to selecting and combining commonplace methods and cannot be said to be not generally known or not readily ascertainable.”
⇒ Not “non-public”
(2) Even setting (1) aside, “the possibility remains that they believed it did not constitute a trade secret, and there were reasonable grounds for that belief.”
⇒ They cannot be held liable for an intentional offense.
(Excerpt from the court's reasoning)
The information the two defendants explained to e at the meeting concerned a process for aligning amorphous wire on a substrate, but differed significantly in important process steps from the structure of b's wire-alignment apparatus and the process of aligning amorphous wire on a substrate using that apparatus. Further, the portion corresponding to the process alleged by the prosecutor stripped away the devices for precisely arranging wires on a substrate in light of amorphous wire's characteristics, and was excessively abstracted and generalized. Even viewed as a unified series of steps, it amounted merely to selecting and combining commonplace methods and could not be said to be not generally known or not readily ascertainable. It therefore did not satisfy the non-public-status requirement among the three requirements for trade secrets (management as secret, usefulness and non-public status). Accordingly, the two defendants cannot be said to have disclosed b's trade secrets at the meeting. Furthermore, even adopting the view that their conduct objectively constituted disclosure of a trade secret (which is not this court's view), the possibility remains that they believed the information explained to e at the meeting did not constitute b's trade secrets, and reasonable grounds existed for that belief. In light of these and other circumstances, neither defendant can be held liable for an intentional offense. Both defendants are therefore acquitted.
Update history
The first-published date remains unchanged. Display maintenance, classification changes, related-article updates, and text corrections are recorded separately.
November 1, 2026: First published on this website.
November 2, 2026: Added article information, classification, topics, language navigation, related articles where the same case was confirmed, consultation guidance, and SEO. The original text and first-published date were preserved.
Comments