1. Core Anti-Leakage Measures: A Three-Step Practical Approach from Agreements to On-Site Control
1. Sign a Tiered NDA and Make the Cost of Leakage Explicit
Real pain point: A start-up brand did not sign an NDA. Six months after prototyping a patented folding blade design, a competitor copied the concept, and there was no legal basis to claim IP infringement (case reported on Zhihu).
Key clauses:
- Scope of confidentiality: Design drawings (including tolerance data, e.g., blade curvature ±0.5 mm), functional parameters (e.g., runtime algorithm), and launch plans (specific timeline milestones).
- Non-compete restriction: The factory shall not produce structurally similar products for competing brands in the same category within two years.
- Liquidated damages: Compensation set at 3–5 times the estimated loss (not less than RMB 500,000), with a designated third-party organization (e.g., SGS) empowered to conduct leakage identification and verification.
2. Deliver “De-Sensitized” Data by Project Stage to Control Exposure of Core Know-How
Real pain point: One team handed over full motor parameters at once (e.g., speed 15,000 r/min). Factory engineers passed this data to an industry peer, allowing a competitor to launch earlier (case reported on Xiaohongshu).
Delivery cadence:
- Prototyping stage: Provide only partial, non-core drawings (for example, blade appearance only, with motor structure hidden).
- Pilot run stage: Replace critical parameters with internal codes (e.g., using “Runtime Level A” instead of specifying a 2,000 mAh battery capacity).
- Mass production stage: Attach a “Data Use Authorization Letter” explicitly limiting the data to being used for this specific order only.
3. Monitor the Entire Production Process to Prevent Internal Operational Leaks
Real pain point: Factory staff recorded production videos and posted them on social media, unintentionally exposing new colorways and button layouts before launch (case reported on Weibo).
Control measures:
- Workshop control: Prohibit mobile phones on the production floor, install signal jammers where legally allowed, and require all staff to sign a “Workshop Confidentiality Code of Conduct”.
- Supervision of critical processes: Station your own staff or appoint a third-party supervisor to be on-site and submit a daily “Production Log” with photos.
- Handling of finished and defective products: Non-conforming parts must be cut up and destroyed; destruction should be recorded on video and archived for at least six months.
2. Selecting a Secure Factory: Three-Step Audit Plus Avoiding High-Risk Supplier Types
1. Three-Step On-Site Audit Method
Real-world lesson: A seller trusted “workshop photos” shown in a social media feed and paid in advance, only to discover the counterparty was a trading company. Their design drawings were then forwarded to three other customers (case reported on Tieba).
Factory audit checklist:
| Step | Inspection Items | Objective |
| Verify qualifications | Real-time workshop videos (showing factory name + real-time watermark), utility bills for the last three months | Filter out trading companies posing as factories |
| Verify quality control | Pre-production sample approval records (customer-signed versions), noise test reports with ≤ 35 dB results | Avoid discrepancies between samples and mass production |
| Verify reputation | Public records of “trade secret infringement disputes” on corporate search platforms (zero records preferred), and no leak-related complaints on industry forums | Validate the factory’s track record in honoring confidentiality |
2. Identifying and Avoiding Three Types of High-Risk Factories
| High-Risk Type | Identifying Features | Mitigation Strategy |
| Trading company posing as a factory | Refuses to provide real-time workshop video; quotes significantly below industry peers (e.g., market price RMB 30 per unit, quoted at RMB 20) | Three mandatory checks: equipment purchase contracts, utility bills, and address verification via street-view maps |
| Factory with poor quality control | Claims “samples fully meet requirements,” but refuses to provide test reports and does not accept pre-production sample sign-off | Include QC-based penalties in the contract: for every 1 dB of noise exceeding the agreed limit, deduct 2% of the total order value |
| Factory with insufficient export / certification capability | Claims “we can handle UL certification,” but has no cases in the last six months; uses vague wording like “probably” and “roughly” in communication | Choose factories offering “all-in-one certification support”: the quotation includes certification fees and a fixed schedule (e.g., completion within 45 days, with a penalty of 0.5% of the order value per day of delay) |
3. Core Action Checklist
- Anti-leakage: Sign a tiered NDA (with explicit compensation clauses) → deliver de-sensitized data by project stage (use internal codes instead of core parameters) → monitor the entire production process (workshop signal control + documented destruction of defective parts).
- Factory selection: Verify qualifications (workshop video + utility bills) → verify quality control (test reports + pre-production sample sign-off) → verify reputation (no history of leakage-related complaints).
- Key avoidance strategies: Avoid trading companies, factories with lax QC, and suppliers lacking export/certification capability. Give priority to real manufacturing plants that can support small pilot runs of 3,000–5,000 units.
