弗吉尼亚州上诉法院推翻数十亿美元的商业秘密裁决
来源：广东中策知识产权研究院 发布日期：2024-11-22 阅读：40次
Finding errors in the lower court's jury instructions and evidentiary rulings, the Virginia's Court of Appeals struck down a $2 billion trade secrets award, the largest trade secrets verdict in the state's history. Despite striking the damages award, the court upheld the lower court's determination that Appian Corp (Appian) had properly defined its trade secrets, thereby allowing it to make a trade secrets misappropriation claim against Pegasystems, Inc ("Pega"). As such, the Court of Appeals remanded the case to the trial court for a new trial.
弗吉尼亚州上诉法院发现下级法院的陪审团指示和证据认定中存在错误，推翻了一项价值20亿美元的商业秘密裁决，这是该州历史上最大的商业秘密案。尽管驳回了损害赔偿裁决，但上诉法院维持了下级法院其他部分的判定，即Appian Corp（下文简称“Appian”）正确界定了其商业秘密，从而允许其对Pegasystems, Inc（下文简称“Pega”）提出商业秘密不当使用索赔。因此，上诉法院将案件发回初审法院进行重新审理。
The case at issue involved two competitors in the business process management (BPM) software market: Appian and Pega. Appian develops products with an eye towards attracting smaller-scale customers who look for speed and simplicity in their BPM products. It also attempts to attract customers looking for specific functionalities, such as the ability to use its BPM platform on mobile devices and the use a "social feed" where users can comment and provide input on the tasks, worklists, and developments of others. Pega, meanwhile, focuses on businesses that operate at scale. Unlike Appian, which focuses on developing specific functionalities for its BPM platform, Pega seeks to enable users at large organizations to use their BPM software to handle complex problems and undertakings.
本案涉及业务流程管理（BPM）软件市场的两家竞争对手：Appian和Pega。Appian开发的产品着眼于吸引规模较小的客户，这些客户追求BPM产品的迅捷易行。它还试图吸引寻求特定功能的客户，例如能够在移动设备上使用其BPM平台，同时用户可以通过“社交信息流”对任务、工作列表和其他人的进展进行评论和提供意见。Pega的目标客户则是大规模运营的企业，与Appian专注于为其BPM平台开发特定功能不同，Pega旨在使大型组织中的用户能够使用其BPM软件处理复杂的问题和任务。
Appian describes Pega as an "archrival" in the BPM market, where both have competed for over a decade. According to the complaint, in 2012, Pega's then-head of competitive intelligence, John Petronio, sought to learn about how developers use Appian's platform. Appian never made its platform publicly available, so Petronio decided to use a staffing agency to hire a consultant with access to Appian's platform.
Appian将Pega形容为BPM市场的“劲敌”，双方已经竞争了十余年。起诉书显示，在2012年Pega当时负责竞争情报的主管John Petronio，试图了解开发人员如何使用Appian平台。Appian的平台权限不对外公开，因此Petronio决定通过一家人事代理机构聘请一名能够访问Appian平台的顾问。
Petronio eventually hired an individual the Court's opinion identifies as "Consultant Zou," who, from 2012-2014, would give numerous demonstrations and trainings to Pega staff about how Appian's platform worked. According to the opinion, Pega continued to access Appian's platform after Zou's worked finished by, for example, using aliases to gain free trial access to Appian. Petronio himself would leave Pega in 2015 and eventually was hired by Appian as Senior Director of Market Intelligence and Strategy, at which point he informed Appian of Pega's conduct and this lawsuit was filed.
Petronio最终聘请了法院意见中称为“顾问Zou”的人员，从2012年到2014年，他就Appian平台的运作向Pega员工提供了大量的演示和培训。根据该意见，在Zou的工作完成后，Pega继续访问Appian的平台，例如使用别名获得Appian的免费试用访问权限。Petronio本人于2015年离开Pega，最终被Appian聘为市场情报和战略高级总监，当时他向Appian 告知了Pega的行为，由此提起该诉讼。
In its Complaint, Appian accused Pega of hiring Zou as a spy to steal information on Appian's strengths and weaknesses. Appian further alleged that Zou helped Pega improve its platform and undermine Appian's reputation among its potential customer base by highlighting its weaknesses. Pega denied the allegations, arguing that Appian failed to adequately identify any trade secrets, and that it did not undermine Appian's reputation since the weaknesses on its platform were publicly known since Appian had licensed its platform to millions of users and had been subject to public, online reviews.
在起诉书中，Appian指控Pega雇佣Zou作为间谍，窃取有关Appian优劣势的信息。Appian进一步指控Zou帮助Pega完善其平台，并通过强调Appian的弱点来破坏其在潜在客户群中的商誉。Pega否认了这些指控，辩称Appian未能充分界定任何商业秘密，而且Pega没有破坏Appian的商誉，因为Appian将其平台授权给数百万用户，并受到公开在线评论，因此其平台的弱点是众所周知的。
After a full trial, the jury awarded Appian $2.04 billion in damages. The trial court affirmed the full award and Pega appealed.
经过全面的审理，陪审团裁定Appian获得20.4亿美元的损害赔偿金。初审法院确认了全额赔偿，Pega提起上诉。
On appeal, Pega argued that the trial court erred in its evidentiary rulings by (i) excluding demonstrative evidence that would show the degree of changes to Pega's platform during Zou's tenure at the company; (ii) excluding evidence concerning Pega's profits from its non-BPM line relevant to a damages determination; and (iii) including a jury instruction that presumed a causal nexus between Pega's total sales and trade secrets stolen that Pega was burdened with rebutting. Pega further argued that Appian's talismanic invocation of software "architecture and design" was too nebulous to warrant protection.
在上诉时，Pega辩称初审法院在证据认定方面存在以下错误：
（i）排除了表明Zou在任职期间Pega平台变化程度的说明性证据；
（ii）排除了与损害赔偿裁定有关的Pega非BPM业务线利润的证据；
（iii）包括一项陪审团指示，其假定Pega总营业额与被盗用的商业秘密之间存在因果关系，Pega有责任反驳。Pega进一步辩称，Appian对软件“架构和设计”的护身符式援引过于模糊，不值得保护。
The appeals court agreed with Pega on its claims that the lower court had made erroneous evidentiary rulings and gave improper jury instructions. Finding that the lower court failed to provide any basis for its exclusionary rulings under the relevant rules of evidence, and that the jury instruction erroneously and improperly burdened Pega, the appeals court vacated the damages award and remanded for a new trial. However, on the question of Appian sufficiently defined its trade secrets, the Court of Appeal agreed with Appian. It found that Appian had alleged five distinct trade secrets, and that the secrets were "properly delineated" to survive a motion to strike.
上诉法院同意Pega的主张，即下级法院作出了错误的证据裁定，并给予了不当的陪审团指示。上诉法院发现，下级法院未能按照相关的证据规则为其排除行为提供任何依据，而且陪审团的指示不当地加重了Pega的负担，因此撤销了损害赔偿裁决，并发回重审。然而，在Appian充分界定其商业秘密的问题上，上诉法院同意Appian的意见。Appian声称拥有五个不同的商业秘密，这些秘密被“恰当地描述”因而免于被法院推翻。
While upholding the lower court ruling would have provided a historic boon to trade secrets plaintiffs, the appellate court's review nonetheless gives guidance to litigants seeking court protection of software trade secrets and what is needed to define a trade secret. Appian has appealed the Court of Appeals ruling to Virginia's Supreme Court and both sides have filed their opening briefs. We will continue to monitor this case for developments as the appeal process plays out.
虽然维持下级法院的部分裁决将为商业秘密原告提供重大利好，但上诉法院的审查仍为寻求法院保护软件商业秘密的诉讼当事人以及界定商业秘密的必要条件提供了指导。Appian已经将上诉法院的裁决上诉到弗吉尼亚最高法院，双方都提交了开庭陈述。随着上诉程序的进行，我们将继续关注此案的进展。