如您希望下载PDF版本，请点击文末“阅读原文”获取。
背景
在No. 4:13-cv-01895 (E.D. Mo. Sept. 27, 2024)一案中（“裁定”），美国密苏里州东区联邦地区法院审理了另一个国家的保密法是否可以阻止美国司法程序中证据开示的问题。具体而言，原告提交了一项动议，要求法院强制被告回应其关于涉及被指控侵犯原告专利的产品的销售信息的证据开示请求。在反对原告的动议时，被告请求根据中国保密法发布保护令，禁止提供该等信息。被告主张，法院应根据中国保密法颁布保护令，因为响应原告的证据开示请求提供信息可能会使其面临根据中国新近颁布的《反间谍法》规定的广泛制裁。被告依赖于一位中国律师的声明以及地方商务局的函件作为依据。地区法院注意到其此前曾驳回基于中国的《数据安全法》、《网络安全法》和《个人信息保护法》要求法院颁布保护令的主张，并得出类似结论，认为《反间谍法》规定的制裁威胁是推测性的。因此，法院裁定支持原告的强制动议，并驳回了被告的保护令请求。
地区法院认为被告关于中国反间谍法项下制裁威胁的论点是推测性的
在审理双方关于中国《反间谍法》的争议前，地区法院首先总结了其先前对中国《数据安全法》、《网络安全法》和《个人信息保护法》的相关发现，并将其统称为“保密法”（见裁定第7页）。法院对其先前的发现总结如下：
美国对在法院通过公正、迅速和低成本的诉讼来维护美国原告权利方面的重大利益超过了中国执行其保密法的利益；而被告仅是推测，如果他们遵守证据开示请求可能会面临制裁或处罚。
见裁定第7页（引用先前日期为2023年1月20日的裁定）
随后，地区法院审理了双方根据于2023年7月生效的中国《反间谍法》（该法律是在之前裁决发布后实施的）提出的论点。法院承认“中国新颁布的《反间谍法》对信息共享施加了额外限制”，但驳回了被告的论点，即他们根据新法律所面临的处罚“极其广泛”，以至于要求法院发布一项保护令（见裁定第8页）。法院随后分析了被告依赖的证据，认定其声称将面临制裁的主张过于具有推测性。
关于证据，地区法院首先审查了被告为支持其保护令请求而提交的一位中国律师的声明。法院认为该声明存在不足，因为其未能“讨论新颁布的反间谍法”，也未提供任何关于在该法律下可能受到制裁的分析（见裁定第8页）。接下来，法院审查了被告提交的地方商务局的函件，函件解释称被告“应当遵守中国的数据安全法律”。然而，法院认为该函件并未证明制裁很有可能发生或只是推测，因为“该函件并未提供有关违反《反间谍法》潜在后果的可能性”（见裁定第8页）。
在审查案件事实后，地区法院进一步审理了美国证据开示规则在该案中的适用性。法院得出结论，认为提交的证据“不过是[被告]可能因提供所要求的信息而在中国法律下受到处罚的推测而已。” （见裁定第8至9页）。法院引用了其他地区法院的多项裁决，解释道：“中国诉讼当事人经常试图通过辩称多种中国法律阻碍了他们遵守规定来规避美国法院的证据开示要求，但法院通常驳回这一论点，并强制执行《联邦民事诉讼程序规则》与证据开示相关的规定。”（见裁定第9页）。法院特别指出，被告未能“引用[任何]案例表明中国的个人或实体因遵守美国法院的《联邦民事诉讼程序规则》而根据中国隐私法受到制裁。”（见裁定第9页）。最终，法院并不认同被告的论点，即他们因不可控的因素而陷入“要么遵守原告的证据开示请求并面临中国制裁，要么拒绝遵守……并面临本法院制裁风险”的两难境地。法院解释道：“没有人强迫被告在美国市场销售产品”，并且 被告“选择了如此行事，明知这可能会将他们置于美国法院的管辖范围之内，并在那里受到适用规则的约束。”（见裁定第9页）。
结论与经验
裁决表明，美国法院可能不会因为笼统的主张，即提供材料方可能因中国的反间谍法或隐私法面临制裁，而阻止证据开示。然而，地区法院的意见暗示了法院可能会更接受被告提出的更加具体的论据，即说明为何提供相关信息很可能会根据中国反间谍法或保密法的某些具体条款受到制裁。例如，法院特别指出，中国律师的声明未能说明被告在《反间谍法》下可能会受到制裁的具体原因或依据。同样，法院注意到地方商务局的函件仅表示中国公司必须遵守《反间谍法》，但并未阐明提供相关材料如何或为何会使被告面临制裁。简而言之，美国法院不太可能接受仅仅根据中国反间谍法和隐私法可能导致制裁的推测性论点。公司在提出此类主张时，如果能通过例如中国律师声明或地方商务局函件等证据阐明针对相关法律的具体顾虑，从而证明对这种潜在危害的担忧不仅仅是推测而是确实有可能发生的，则该类主张将更有可能获得成功。
United States Federal Court Rules that the People's Republic of China's Secrecy Laws Are Insufficient Basis to Refuse Producing Relevant Documents in Discovery
1. Background
In No. 4:13-cv-01895 (E.D. Mo. Sept. 27, 2024) ("Opinion"), the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri addressed the issue of whether the secrecy laws of another country may prevent discovery in the United States. Specifically, the Plaintiff filed a motion to compel the Defendants to respond to discovery seeking sales information regarding the products accused of infringing the Plaintiff's patents. In opposing the Plaintiff's motion, the Defendants requested a protective order barring the production of such information under Chinese secrecy law. The Defendants urged that a protective order should be granted because the production of information responsive to the Plaintiff's discovery requests could expose Defendants to broad sanctions under the People’s Republic of China's (PRC) recently enacted Counterespionage Law. The Defendants relied on the declaration of a Chinese attorney and a letter from the local Bureau of Commerce. The district court acknowledged that it had previously rejected arguments based on China's Data Security Laws, its Cybersecurity Law, and its Personal Information Protection Law and similarly concluded that the threat of sanctions under the Counterespionage Law was speculative. As such, the court granted the Plaintiff's motion to compel and denied the Defendants' motion for a protective order.
2. The District Court Finds Defendants' Argument About the Threat of Sanctions Under China's Counterespionage Law Speculative
Prior to addressing the parties' dispute with respect to the PRC's Counterespionage Law, the district court first summarized its prior findings with respect to the PRC's Data Security Laws, Cybersecurity Law, and Personal Information Protection Law, which it broadly referred to as "secrecy laws." Opinion at 7. The court summarized its prior findings as follows:
[T]he United States' substantial interest in vindicating the rights of American plaintiffs through the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of litigation in its courts outweighs China's interests in the enforcement of its secrecy laws; and Defendants offered only speculation that they would be subject to sanctions or penalties if they complied with the discovery requests.
Id. (citing prior order dated Jan. 20, 2023).
The district court then addressed the parties' arguments under the PRC's Counterespionage Law that became effective in July 2023 (after the earlier ruling). The court acknowledged "the additional restraints on information-sharing imposed under the PRC's recently enacted Counterespionage Law" but rejected the Defendants' argument that the "extremely broad nature" of the penalties they faced under the new law required the court to issue a protective order. Id. at 8. The court then analyzed the evidence relied on by the Defendants and determined that the Defendants' claim that they would be subject to sanctions was too speculative.
With respect to the evidence, the district court first addressed the declaration of a Chinese attorney submitted by the Defendants in support of their request for a protective order. The court found the Declaration lacking because it failed to "discuss the newly promulgated Counterespionage Law" and did not provide any analysis of the likelihood of sanctions under such law. Opinion at 8. The court next addressed a letter from the local Bureau of Commerce submitted by the Defendants, which explained the Defendants were "expected to comply with China’s data security laws." Id. However, the court found the letter did not evidence that sanctions were likely or more then speculative because "the letter provides no information about the likelihood of potential consequences of violating the Counterespionage Law, in particular." Id.
After addressing the facts of the case, the district court addressed the applicability of U.S. discovery rules to the facts of the case. The court concluded that the evidence represented "nothing more than speculation that [the Defendants] may be subject to penalties under Chinese law if they produce the requested information." Opinion at 8–9. Citing a number of decisions from other district courts, the court explained "Chinese litigants often attempt to avoid discovery in American courts by arguing that various PRC laws block compliance, and courts frequently reject that argument and enforce compliance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure regarding discovery." Id. at 9. The court especially pointed out the Defendants' failure to "cite [any] case in which a Chinese individual or entity has been sanctioned under Chinese privacy laws for complying with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in an American court." Id. Ultimately, the court was not sympathetic to the Defendants' argument that they faced the "untenable position of either complying with the Plaintiff’s discovery request and being subjected to Chinese sanctions or refusing to comply ... and facing the risk of sanctions by this Court" due to circumstances outside of their control. The court explained that "[n]o one forced Defendants to market products in the United States" and the Defendants "chose to, knowing that they could be hauled into American courts, where they would be subject to the applicable rules." Id.
3. Conclusion and Lessons
The decision in the case shows that U.S. courts may not preclude discovery based on generalized claims that the PRC's counterespionage and privacy laws could subject the producing party to sanctions. However, the district court's opinion suggests that the court may have been more receptive of particularized arguments directed to why production of the information in question was likely to subject one to sanctions under a particular aspect of the PRC's counterespionage or secrecy laws. For example, the court specifically noted that the Chinese attorney declaration did not address how or why the Defendants would likely be subject to sanctions under any aspect of the PRC's Counterespionage Law. Similarly, the court noted that the letter from the local Bureau of Commerce merely indicated that Chinese companies must comply with the PRC's Counterespionage Law without articulating how or why production of the material in question would subject the Defendants to sanctions. In short, courts in the U.S. are less likely to be receptive to speculative arguments regarding the mere possibility of sanctions under PRC counterespionage and privacy laws. Companies making such arguments are more likely to be successful when they adduce evidence, e.g., through a Chinese attorney declaration, a letter from the local Bureau of Commerce, etc., addressing particularized concerns regarding such laws to establish more than the speculative probability of harm.
本文作者
Michael Devincenzo
合伙人
纽约办公室
michael.devincenzo@us.kwm.com
业务领域：知识产权诉讼，包括专利、商标、版权和反垄断案件
DeVincenzo拥有近二十年的初审和上诉经验。他曾在美国各地的联邦初审法院和上诉法院以及国际贸易委员会开展诉讼业务，侧重于知识产权诉讼，包括专利、商标、版权和反垄断案件。DeVincenzo 曾代表多家知名企业参与备受瞩目的专利诉讼案件，涉及许多业务领域，比如金融服务行业产品、计算机硬件和软件、电路、电子元器件、商业方法、医疗器械以及视听和电信设备。DeVincenzo先生为客户提供知识产权组合管理、组合挖掘、专利再颁、专利复审、战略性获取和实施知识产权方面的咨询服务，并就专利有效性、范围和可执行性出具法律意见。
Charles Wizenfeld
合伙人
纽约办公室
charles.wizenfeld@us.kwm.com
业务领域：专利诉讼，主要为电气和计算机艺术领域
Wizenfeld拥有超过十五年出庭经验。他代表客户参与在美国各地区法院、美国国际贸易委员会以及美国专利商标局专利审判和上诉委员会提起的专利诉讼的各个环节，包括多次参与庭审和上诉。Wizenfeld 的执业领域主要为电气和计算机艺术，他处理过的案件涉及各类技术，包括LED、半导体、计算机网络设备、用于光发射机的预失真电路、互联网电话、可视语音邮件以及各类型客户证券交易自动化系统。Wizenfeld先生还就许可及资产组合估值事宜向客户提供法律意见。
Andrea Pacelli
顾问
纽约办公室
andrea.pacelli@us.kwm.com
业务领域：专利诉讼，尤其是电气、计算机、电信和软件领域
Pacelli 主办过涉及各类技术案件，涉及集成电路设计和制造、无线和宽带电信、云计算与存储和在线广告等技术。他拥有专利诉讼各个阶段的丰富实践经验，涵盖专利选择和立案前调查、书面证据开示、口头取证、申请专利范围解释、简易判决、审判和上诉等阶段。Pacelli先生代表客户在美国各地联邦地区法院、联邦巡回上诉法院和最高法院进行专利侵权诉讼，并代表客户处理向美国专利商标局专利审判和上诉委员会、美国国际贸易委员会（ITC）提起的以及国际仲裁中的专利纠纷。此外，Pacelli 还代表客户向美国专利商标局提起专利申请和复审，并代表多家大型半导体公司参与多项专利交叉许可谈判。
转载声明：好文共赏，如需转载，请直接在公众号后台或下方留言区留言获取授权。
