What's wrong with this lawyer?!

After the evidence is presented, it's time for cross-examination. Lao Tang conducts cross-examination on each of Jie Jianbin's pieces of evidence.

"Regarding Evidence 1 to 3, I acknowledge their legality and objectivity but not their relevance or purpose of proof, because technological achievements do not automatically lose their secrecy simply because parts have been disclosed in patents."

As mentioned before, there is a containing and contained relationship between technological achievements and the corresponding patents.

This is why after dealing with the trade secret infringement case, one can then initiate a retrial of invention patent infringement.

The former includes the latter, but legally they are completely different concepts.

Thus, even though parts are disclosed due to a patent application, it does not mean the entire technological achievement loses its secrecy.

"We recognize the legality of Evidence 4 and 5, but not their objectivity and relevance. The chemical raw material production in this case involves factors like safety supervision and environmental protection."

"Evidence 8 in our first set of evidence can prove that the company's production requires a special environmental assessment, and during production, it will be stopped due to inspections and other factors by relevant departments..."

This is unavoidable, for instance, if there is a major fire somewhere, you must stop first and then inspect for fire safety.

The production of flammable and explosive chemical raw materials is never solely determined by technology.

Although Tengfei is a major company in Jingzhou, it is still different locally compared to a listed state-owned enterprise like Dajin.

"Regarding Evidence 6, we do not recognize its legality, objectivity, or relevance because the report is just a report and there is no other evidence to prove its production scale."

"Moreover, there was no technology on the market at that time to produce 80,000 tons per year."

This was decided by Huang Zhongyi and Cui Zhengyu, Tengfei's technology is the most advanced. If there really was such a remarkable technology, Dajin wouldn't need to hire Tao Zhongcheng as a consultant.

After completing the cross-examination for each piece of evidence, Jie Jianbin's side also began cross-examining, rebutting Lao Tang's evidence in various aspects.

The only thing he couldn't cross-examine was the criminal case of Tao Zhongcheng and the design company boss.

After both sides completed cross-examination, Judge Sun asked a few more questions, then announced the start of court debate.

Court debate mainly focuses on the controversies determined in the pre-trial meeting.

First is the issue of statute of limitations.

"We believe that there are two types of claims in this case. The first is to stop the infringement, and the second is to seek compensation."

"According to Article 188 of the 'Civil Code', the period for filing a claim with the People's Court to protect civil rights is three years. If otherwise stipulated by law, follow such stipulations."

"Article 196 of the 'Civil Code' stipulates that the following claims are not subject to the statute of limitations: (1) Claims for stopping the infringement, removing obstruction, and eliminating danger;"

"Therefore, our claim to stop the infringement is not subject to the constraint of the statute of limitations."

Here, it should be noted that the statute of limitations we generally talk about is roughly understood to restrict only claims of creditors' rights. Absolute claims like stopping infringement are not applicable.

"As for the second type of claim for compensation, we need to explain that continuous infringement should be regarded as a whole, and the statute of limitations should be calculated after it ends."

"And even if it's not regarded as a whole, whether the trade secret was discovered to be infringed is a dynamic and continuous process."

"The defendant believes that the time we discovered the trade secret infringement is the time the patent infringement case was filed. However, at that time, we did not know about the trade secret infringement."

As always, the 'Civil Code' stipulates: Know or should know.

To presume that the trade secret was known to be infringed at that time, the existing evidence is insufficient.

"And subsequently, through continuous investigations, only before reporting this year did we truly realize there was a trade secret infringement situation..."

The starting point of statute of limitations for continuous infringement cases is a difficult point, due to the lack of clear provision in current laws and regulations.

The Supreme Court once issued, currently there are three main positions in practice.

The first is to start counting from the date the infringement ends, viewing the continuous infringement as a whole. Statute of limitations begins when it ends.

The second is to count retrospectively for three years from the date the right holder files a lawsuit with the People's Court.

Some may not understand this sentence. It means you can sue, but the court will only support compensation from the past three years from now.

This is already a special provision, because normally, if you sue beyond three years, your appeal will be entirely dismissed.

There are some special judicial interpretations in this regard.

For example, Article 17 of the "Supreme Court's Provisions on the Trial of Patent Dispute Cases" and Article 27 of the "Supreme Court's Interpretation on the Trial of Copyright...," both have similar provisions.

No further elaboration on the third, as it's not mainstream anymore.

Lao Tang doesn't know which position the Provincial High Court will take, so he presented both views.

"I believe that the purpose of the statute of limitations is to balance the interests between the parties, to protect the rights of the parties, and to prevent them from resting on their rights, thus increasing judicial uncertainty."

"Therefore, in this case, the defendant's continuous infringement and massive malicious expansion of infringement scale cannot be simply measured by the statute of limitations..."