Jipyong’s IP / IT Group and Criminal Defense Group represented GigaTera Lighting (“GigaTera”) and its three officers and employees in a criminal investigation on the leakage of the trade secret of Blue Kite and obtained the police decision of not transferring the case to the Prosecutor’s Office. In this case, Blue Kite, a trading partner of GigaTera, filed a charge against GigaTera, alleging that GigaTera for trade secret leakage and breach of trust. Jipyong proactively claimed that the allegations above were groundless, and the investigative authority accepted Jipyong’s claim.
The issues in dispute are as follows: (i) Whether the officers and employees of GigaTera disclosed the trade secret specified in Blue Kite’s Business Plan in 2021 to Companies A and B in the office of GigaTera and thus Blue Kite failed to receive orders to supply its lighting products from golf courses; and (ii) in the situation where A’s lighting products installed in the golf course are the same as those of GigaTera, whether the officers and employees engaged in a breach of trust by violating the exclusive agreement with Blue Kite by supplying such products to A.
In response to such allegations, Jipyong argued that (i) Blue Kite’s Business Plan in 2021 was not provided to the officers and employees of GigaTera, and the timing of the briefing of the contents of the foregoing plan does not correspond to the date specified in the allegations, and thus, Blue Kite’s failure to receive orders to supply its products to a golf course is irrelevant to the activities of the officers and employees of Giga Tera; (ii) as the lighting products supplied to the golf course by Company A is independently developed by Company A and are different from GigaTera’s products. As a result, the investigative agency accepted all the arguments above and decided not to transfer the case to the prosecutors’ office (as the allegations are groundless).
As this case involves a conflict of interest concerning the interpretation of the exclusive agreement between trading partners, the result was very important. In particular, Jipyong’s role in meticulously analyzing and pointing out various contradictions in the circumstances and the indirect evidence submitted by Blue Kite even when such circumstances and evidence were unfavorable to Giga Tera was significant in obtaining the investigative agency’s decision.
The issues in dispute are as follows: (i) Whether the officers and employees of GigaTera disclosed the trade secret specified in Blue Kite’s Business Plan in 2021 to Companies A and B in the office of GigaTera and thus Blue Kite failed to receive orders to supply its lighting products from golf courses; and (ii) in the situation where A’s lighting products installed in the golf course are the same as those of GigaTera, whether the officers and employees engaged in a breach of trust by violating the exclusive agreement with Blue Kite by supplying such products to A.
In response to such allegations, Jipyong argued that (i) Blue Kite’s Business Plan in 2021 was not provided to the officers and employees of GigaTera, and the timing of the briefing of the contents of the foregoing plan does not correspond to the date specified in the allegations, and thus, Blue Kite’s failure to receive orders to supply its products to a golf course is irrelevant to the activities of the officers and employees of Giga Tera; (ii) as the lighting products supplied to the golf course by Company A is independently developed by Company A and are different from GigaTera’s products. As a result, the investigative agency accepted all the arguments above and decided not to transfer the case to the prosecutors’ office (as the allegations are groundless).
As this case involves a conflict of interest concerning the interpretation of the exclusive agreement between trading partners, the result was very important. In particular, Jipyong’s role in meticulously analyzing and pointing out various contradictions in the circumstances and the indirect evidence submitted by Blue Kite even when such circumstances and evidence were unfavorable to Giga Tera was significant in obtaining the investigative agency’s decision.
GLOBAL LEGAL INSIGHT
Responding to Copyright Infringement in China: A Strategic Guide for Foreign Rights Holders
2025.05.15