刑民交叉案件是指法律事实存在重合或交叉关系的刑、民关联案件，其程序性问题包括两个案件的审理顺序如何安排，以及在后一案件审理过程中如何认定在先裁判的既判力。商业秘密兼具私权与公权的属性；刑民案件审理流程与证据材料具有共通性；刑事入罪门槛不断降低；刑民程序功能逐渐趋同。以上众多因素叠加，使得侵犯商业秘密案件的刑民程序边界日益模糊。启动刑、民两项程序进行维权，成为商业秘密的权利人确定诉讼策略的首选项。由于商业秘密案件审判具有较强的专业性和复杂性，出于提高审判质量与节约司法资源的考虑，合理设置刑民交叉程序的审理顺序以及赋予在先裁判以一定的拘束力具有现实必要性。然而司法实践中因为规则缺位，无论是当事人维权的策略，还是法院裁判的逻辑，均呈现出无序运转的乱象。在此背景下，以侵害商业秘密案件为研究对象，分析刑民交叉案件中的程序问题，具有规范个体权利救济、统一司法裁判实践、形成程序示范效应的意义。本文共五章：

第一章对刑民交叉案件及其程序问题进行界定。刑民交叉案件意味着诉讼案件的复数形态，是单一程序功能有限的必然结果。根据程序形态和形成原因，可将刑民交叉案件分为三类：规范竞合型、责任聚合型和事实牵连型。程序性问题包括刑民案件的审理顺序和前诉的既判力问题。

第二章介绍侵犯商业秘密刑民交叉案件的规范背景、理论类型与相关价值理念。特殊的法益属性、刑民二元的救济体系、刑民案件共通的审理逻辑以及“三审合一”的审判机制，共同构成商业秘密司法保护的规范背景。2020年中美经贸谈判后，我国商业秘密刑民法律规范进行大规模调整，刑民程序的边界与功能趋近，实践中刑民程序往往并轨运行，导致了刑民交叉案件的产生。商业秘密案件可分别因司法机关的认定偏差、权利人多维的权利救济需求、在先的权利或权属确认之诉，分别构成三类刑民交叉案件。在酌定商业秘密程序规范时，需要平衡商业秘密保护与现代化发展、刑法谦抑理念、劳动者保护等价值之间的关系。

第三章聚焦于程序问题之一的审理顺序问题。本章首先介绍了现行立法和司法实践中侵犯商业秘密刑民交叉案件审理顺序的情况。不同类型的刑民交叉案件，在决定审理顺序时应侧重考量不同的影响因素。绝对的先刑后民与先民后刑原则面临着合理性欠缺的问题。更为理性的解决方案是：在统一刑民案件管辖层级的前提下，遵循经过修正的先民后刑审理原则，尊重当事人的程序选择权，限制司法机关单方的程序转换权。

第四章聚焦于程序问题之二的裁判既判力问题。本章首先介绍了刑民裁判间既判力规则的法律规范和理论观点；其次以相关裁判文书为样本，归纳了实践中不恰当认定在先裁判效力的情形；最后就侵犯商业秘密刑民交叉案件中如何认定前一裁判的既判力进行了制度建构。

Cases with criminal and civil overlap refer to cases where legal facts overlap or intersect with each other. The procedural issues include how to arrange the trial sequence of the two cases, and how to deal with the Res judicata of the previous judgement in the process of the trial of the latter case. Trade secrets have both private and public nature. There are commonalities in the trial process and the evidence materials in the criminal and civil cases. The threshold for criminal prosecution has been further lowered. The functions of criminal and civil procedures are gradually converging. The combination of these factors above has made the boundary between criminal and civil procedures of trade secrets cases increasingly blurred. Initiating both criminal and civil procedures for protecting rights has become the preferred choice for rights holders to determine their litigation strategy. Due to the highly professional and complex nature of the trial of trade secrets cases, for the purpose of improving the quality of the trial and saving judicial resources, it is necessary to reasonably arrange the trial sequence of cases with criminal and civil overlap and give a certain effect of Res judicata to the previous judgement. However, in judicial practice, due to the lack of rules, both the litigation strategies of the parties and the logic of court decisions have presented a chaotic and disordered situation. In this context, this article takes cases of infringement of trade secrets as the research object and analyzes the procedural issues in cases with criminal and civil overlap, which is of significance in standardizing individual rights remedies, unifying judicial judgement practice, and forming a procedural demonstration effect. This article consists of five chapters:

Chapter 1 defines the concept “cases with criminal and civil overlap” and relevant procedural issues. Cases with criminal and civil overlap means the plural pattern of cases, which is an inevitable result of the limited functionality of a single procedure. According to the pattern of procedures and reasons for its formation, cases with criminal and civil overlap can be divided into three categories: type of normative competition, type of liability aggregation, type of factual association. Procedural issues include the trial sequence of criminal and civil cases and the Res judicata of the previous proceedings.

Chapter 2 introduces the normative background, theoretical types, and relevant value conceptions of cases with criminal and civil overlap of trade secrets. The special nature of legal interest, the dual right relief system, the common judicial logic in the criminal and civil cases, and the “three-in-one” trial mechanism for IP cases collectively constitute the institutional background of the judicial protection of trade secrets. After the Sino-US trade negotiations in 2020, the statutes of trade secrets in China have undergone large-scale modifications. The boundaries and functions of criminal and civil procedures tended to converge in practice. This led to the parallel operation of criminal and civil procedures. Due to the deviation of judicial authorities' determination, the multi-dimensional needs for Rights Remedies of rights holders, and the prior litigation for confirmation of rights or ownership, infringement of trade secrets cases can be respectively classified into the three types of cases with criminal and civil overlap mentioned above. When determining the procedural norms for trade secret cases, the relationship between judicial protection and modernization process, the principle of modesty of Criminal Law, and worker protection should be balanced.

Chapter 3 focuses on one of the procedural issues: trial sequence. This chapter first introduces the current legislation and judicial practice of the trial sequence of criminal and civil overlapping cases of infringement of trade secrets. Different types of criminal and civil overlapping cases should focus on different influencing factors when designing the trial sequence. The absolute principle of " Criminal Procedure's Priority over Civil Procedure" and " Civil Procedure's prior to Criminal Procedure" face a lack of rationality. A more rational solution is to follow the revised principle of " Civil Procedure's prior to Criminal Procedure " under the premise of unifying the jurisdiction level of criminal and civil cases, respect the procedural choice rights of the parties, and limit the unilateral procedural conversion power of judicial authorities.

Chapter 4 focuses another procedural issue: Res judicata. This chapter first introduces legal norms and the theoretical opinions of the Res judicata rule between the criminal and the civil judgements. Secondly, taking relevant judicial documents as the object, this paper summarizes situations where the binding effect of the previous judgment is not properly recognized in the later litigation. Finally, a systematic construction was carried out on how to determine the binding effect of the previous judgment in the cases with criminal and civil overlap of infringement of trade secrets.