通常，法院在确定涉案的商业秘密时，会要求权利人对商业秘密的内容有明确界定并有适当的载体予以体现。秘密点的确定也是商业秘密的权利基础，无论是判断相关信息是否构成商业秘密还是进行后续的相似性比对，都要围绕确定的秘密点而展开。

What makes a trade secret, a trade secret? And what is the carrier that reflects this trade secret appropriately? Usually the court would require the party claiming a trade secret to answer these two questions, because identification of the secret, providing basis for claiming rights to a trade secret, is critical both in determining whether relevant information constitutes a trade secret and in the subsequent comparison for similarities.

实践中，秘密点的确定遇到的最大挑战是权利人起诉时要求保护的商业秘密范围不明确或过于宽泛，即便经过了司法鉴定甚至技术比对，当事人对秘密点也依然会有争议。因此，法庭原则上会要求原告明确提供秘密点的截止时间，在证据交换结束或已经进入法庭辩论阶段，原告再请求扩大或者改变其秘密点的范围，一般不予准许。

In practice, the biggest challenge in identifying a secret comes from the trade secret holder’s failure to provide a precise and accurate scoping description of the trade secret involved when initiating the lawsuit. On many occasions, even expert testimony and technical comparison cannot end controversy over why the information is considered secret. That is why courts generally establish a deadline for the claimant to demonstrate the secret. Claimant’s petition to expand or change the scope of the secret is generally denied if it is submitted upon exchange of evidence or at the stage of cross examination.

在刑事案件中，有的公安机关往往忽视这个问题，经常出现将公知技术掺杂作为商业秘密的情况，导致案件在法院被推翻。笔者在代理的一起发生于大连的商业秘密刑事辩护案件中，就以此理由成功使得当事人在法庭判决后立即释放。

However, it is not uncommon that criminal allegations are not supported by courts due to some public security organs’ failure to observe the above-mentioned principle that results in publicly available information being deemed element of a trade secret. For example, by utilizing this principle in a trade secret case heard in Dalian, the author has helped the client succeed in defending against criminal allegations. The client was immediately released after the verdict was issued.

法律对可给予保护的商业秘密的前提要求是，当事人已采取了保密措施。按照最高法院司法解释的要求，这种保密措施应当是"与该秘密的商业价值等具体情况相适应的合理保护措施"。

In order to be entitled to legal protection, the party claiming a trade secret must have taken appropriate confidentiality measures. According to the judicial interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court, the confidentiality measures should be "reasonable protective measures appropriate to specific circumstances, particularly business value, of the secret."

所谓合理的保密措施，第一并不要求非常严格和充分，只要达到必要即可；第二可以根据秘密点载体的特点而采取，并无法定的形式；第三应当能够被义务主体所识别；第四应当达到不能被轻易获得的程度。总之，法律并没有要求保密措施的固定形式，一般掌握"足以防止信息泄露"即可。

Confidentiality measures that are considered "reasonable" must meet four essential elements. First, they do not need to be rigorous or sufficient, but must be necessary. Second, the form or the manner in which they are taken, not legally prescribed, should be appropriate to the features of the carrier of the secret. Third, the measures can be identified by the party on which a confidentiality obligation is imposed. Fourth, they should be able to ensure that the secret is not easily accessible. To sum up, confidentiality measures should be "adequate to prevent unauthorized disclosure of confidential information", despite lack of legal provisions on the form or manner in which they should be taken.

在原告证明对涉案商业秘密享有权利并采取了有效的保密措施的情况下，原告还需要举证证明被告实施了侵犯商业秘密的行为。民事案件中，在被告接触了原告商业秘密的情况下，如果证明被告的信息与原告的商业秘密构成实质性相同，且被告没有证明其信息的合法来源，则可以直接推定被告侵犯商业秘密。

After proving its rights to the trade secret and the effectiveness of confidentiality measures taken, the claimant has to meet the burden of proving the respondent’s infringement upon its trade secret. In a civil case where the respondent has gained access to the claimant’s trade secret, the defendant may be presumed to have infringed upon the claimant’s trade secret if it is proved that the information in the respondent’s possession is substantially identical with the claimant’s trade secret and if the respondent fails to prove that the information is from a lawful source. 

在这一过程中，对原告比较困难的是证明被告的信息中是否包含与原告相同的秘密点。这往往需要通过专业的鉴定机构来完成，而实践中比较容易出问题的恰恰是这个环节。

The challenge faced by the claimant at this stage is to prove that any information in the respondent’s possession is identical with the secret held by the claimant. Usually they need to leverage the expertise of professional accreditation bodies, but in practice, this is where problems are very likely to occur.

对于给权利人造成直接经济损失数额在五十万元人民币以上的案件，权利人可以选择通过刑事手段维权。刑事维权的优点在于，公安机关的介入能够在一定程度上降低原告的取证困难，更加容易和快捷地追究被告人的侵权行为。

The holder of trade secret may resort to criminal proceedings if it incurs a direct financial loss of RMB500,000 or more due to the suspected infringement. The advantage of criminal proceedings lies in the intervention of public security organs that helps alleviating the difficulty in meeting burden of proof and makes the process of holding infringers liable easier and faster.

但通过刑事诉讼解决商业秘密纠纷也有其不足。一是立案比较困难，通常而言，二三线城市相比于一线城市更容易立案。二是因为采取刑事手段维权不能获得赔偿。因此，已经有在公安机关没有立案的情况下，权利人采取刑事自诉的方式追究侵权人的刑事责任的案件，这也是当事人可以选择的一个维权方式之一。

But criminal proceedings do have disadvantages. First, it is difficult to get the case filed. Usually it is more difficult to get a case filed in tier-1 cities than in cities of lower level. Second, it is impossible to seek damages through public prosecution. That is why there are cases where trade secret holders hold infringers criminally liable through private prosecution instead of prosecution by pubic security organs. This is a feasible option for defending their rights.

值得说明的是，按照中国的相关法律，对商业秘密的维权还可以选择行政保护。笔者在代理北京市师化精细化工科技开发有限公司商业秘密案件中，即是通过北京市房山区工商行政管理机关对案件进行了查处，在随后的行政诉讼中也赢得胜诉。

It should be noted that trade secret holders may seek administrative protection under the PRC laws. In the trade secret case of Beijing Shihua Fine Chemical Technology Development Co., Ltd. that the author represented, the client succeeded in filing the case with the Administration for Industry and Commerce of Fangshan District, Beijing and eventually won the subsequent administrative litigation.

总之，对于商业秘密纠纷案件，权利人应当根据案件的具体情况，审慎评估各种因素，借助专业的律师，合理选择纠纷解决方式。

In all, trade secret holders should leverage the expertise of lawyers and select the best solution to dispute reasonably, taking into account the specific circumstances of their cases and assessing various factors prudently.