Research On Inevitable Disclosure Doctrine

Inevitable Disclosure Doctrine（“IDD”） is a theory of common law thatenjoins a former employee who will inevitably disclose his formeremployer’s trade secret from working in a specific job under specificcircumstances. After PepsiCo Inc. v. Redmond, the doctrine became apanacea to the problem of how to handle cases of threatenedmisappropriation of trade secrets. However, the doctrine has many defects.For example, the concept is vague, the requirements are uncertain, andthe legal basis hasn’t been clarified. Thus, it has been seriouslycriticized. Confronted by this topic, the author here tries to analyzethe doctrine under the American legal system, and use the traditionalcivil law theory to explore the nature of it, aiming to find the way ofappliance in Chinese legal system.This paper has been divided into four parts. Following the ChapterI, Overview of IDD, the author gives answers to three fundamentalquestions concerning this doctrine, including: How does IDD work inAmerican legal system? How to explain the jurisprudence of IDD throughthe traditional civil law theory? How to construct Claim of PreventingInfringement System in China?Chapter I is Overview of IDD, aiming to expound on the concept of IDD.The author introduces the debate on the concept of “Inevitable”, in order to explain that some researchers have been aware of that “Inevitable”does not mean “necessary”. The author also introduces the debate on therelationship between IDD and Threatened Misappropriation, and concludesthat IDD flows from Threatened Misappropriation.Chapter II is Research on the Requirements of IDD，aiming to get thespecific experience under American IDD system. The author explores therequirements and aggravating factors that courts have considered indetermining IDD, so as to be a reference for the following discussion aboutthe uniformity of the requirements of IDD.Chapter III is Analysis of IDD under Traditional Civil Law Theory,aiming to explain the jurisprudence of IDD through the traditional civillaw theory. First, the author proves that IDD can be assimilated to theClaim of Preventing Infringement System, by analyzing the formeremployer’s right and its nature and the former employee’s obligationand its nature. Second, the author tries to find the legal basis forformer employee’s negative debt, or the legal basis of IDD, by analyzingthe Claim of Preventing Infringement System and Accession System. Third,the author poses the legal basis for compensation: The former employer’saccession to the value of the former employee’s specific skills underValue Accession System, leaves him a debt, he owed the employee, thatreturning the value of specific skills.Chapter IV is Chinese Legislative Situation and New SystemConstruction, aiming to give some advice on the construction of Claim ofPreventing Trade Secret Infringement System. The author introducesChina’s status of legislation in the area of trade secrets and states thatwe have the legislative space for Claim of Preventing Trade SecretInfringement System, and there is the necessity to construct this system.The author tries to construct this system in employment areas: First touniform the requirements of IDD; Second to introduce the traditional remedy of USTA: Enjoin the former employee from disclosure withoutcompensation. The author also discusses how to determine the duration ofIDD: Determine the duration of IDD according to the conclusions of theassessment of the life of trade secret; How to calculate the compensation:Calculate the compensation according to the wages which the person ofordinary skill should have got in the duration of IDD in the same fieldof technology.