Protecting trade secrets in emerging fields is not only a key task in current intellectual property protection work, but also an important path to accelerate the development of new quality productivity. Not long ago, the Supreme People's Procuratorate released six typical cases of procuratorial organs serving the development of new quality productivity, of which four were related to crimes of infringing on trade secrets in emerging fields, reflecting the firm determination of procuratorial organs to severely punish crimes of infringing on trade secrets in accordance with the law, safeguard technological self-reliance and self-improvement, and promote the stable and far-reaching development of new quality productivity. Trade secrets mainly refer to technical information, business information, and other commercial information that is not known to the public, has commercial value, and has been protected by corresponding confidentiality measures taken by the rights holder. They are the core assets of innovation entities and often embody years of R&D investment and intellectual achievements of enterprises. They have three major characteristics: non disclosure, value, and confidentiality. Trade secrets are different from patents in that their protection does not come in exchange for patent rights through public disclosure, but relies on the confidentiality measures of the rights holder and legal remedies after the fact, making them more secretive and vulnerable. From technological innovation to industrial innovation, a rigorous mechanism for protecting trade secrets is indispensable, especially in the context of accelerating the birth of new quality productivity and overcoming key technological challenges. How to strengthen intellectual property protection in emerging fields and build a strong defense line for trade secrets in new quality productivity intensive industries such as artificial intelligence, quantum information, the Internet of Things, and biomedicine has become an important proposition for judicial protection of innovative development. From these typical cases, it can be seen that current cases of infringement of trade secrets present a series of new situations and characteristics. One is that criminal methods are becoming increasingly covert and technological, evolving from simply stealing paper drawings to using digital means such as communication transmission and cloud storage, and even using legal disguises such as technological cooperation to conceal illegal purposes. Secondly, there is a clear trend towards organized and chained criminal activities. In multiple cases, former employees have colluded with current employees to form a criminal network of "internal and external collusion", systematically stealing core technical information. Thirdly, the risk of cross-border leaks has intensified, with overseas institutions using the pretext of consulting and research to probe China's trade secrets in the field of science and technology, posing a threat that has risen to the level of national security. It should be noted that the professionalism and complexity of cases involving trade secrets are prominent. The determination of technical facts relies on professional appraisal, loss assessment involves complex economic models, and the definition of behavioral nature often crosses the boundary between civil breach and criminal offense. The harm lies not only in the direct loss of market share for the rights holders, but also in the possibility of distorting the innovation ecosystem of the entire industry due to free riding behavior. Once a window effect of "thieves benefit, investors suffer" is formed, it will seriously hinder the independent iteration process of key core technologies. For judicial organs, it is necessary to accelerate the construction of a new mechanism for handling cases that adapts to technological iteration and cross-border risks, and form more accurate and efficient judicial response capabilities in key links such as professional appraisal, loss assessment, and legal application. From these typical cases, we see the efforts made by judicial authorities to address the professionalism and complexity of trade secret cases. Firstly, adept at using "external intelligence" to break through technological barriers. In the case of Zhang and 14 others infringing on trade secrets, in response to the criminal facts of infringing on core technology secrets in China's chip design field, the procuratorial organs hired multiple senior experts in the communication industry to provide professional interpretation and qualitative opinions on the technical facts, compare the technical secret points one by one, accurately determine the nature of the behavior of "obtaining trade secrets by improper means", inject professional support into the case handling, and ultimately, the court sentenced all 14 defendants to the crime of infringing on trade secrets and sentenced them to corresponding punishments in accordance with the law. Secondly, accurately determine the amount of losses and the nature of the behavior. In the case of infringement of trade secrets by a certain technology limited company, Wen, and others, the procuratorial organ focused on collecting evidence of reasonable licensing fees for products without actual infringement, and ultimately determined that the assessed value of reasonable licensing fees for trade secrets was 8.28 million yuan. Through criminal and civil litigation, the right holder was helped to recover economic losses of more than 8 million yuan. Thirdly, extend the chain of performance and assist in source control. In the case of Hu and Wang's infringement of trade secrets, the local procuratorial organ suggested that they improve the internal approval procedures for accessing and downloading the relevant enterprise technology system management loopholes. These measures reflect the organic extension of the procuratorial organs from individual case prosecution to systematic governance, conveying a clear judicial orientation of "protecting innovation, severely punishing infringement, and preventing and controlling at the source", and creating a stable, fair, and transparent legal environment for the development of new quality productivity. Protecting trade secrets is to safeguard innovation vitality and new quality productivity. Currently, China is at a critical stage of transitioning from a major intellectual property country to a strong intellectual property country, and the demand for trade secret protection in strategic emerging industries such as artificial intelligence, semiconductors, and biomedicine is particularly urgent. This requires judicial organs to always adhere to strict protection and perform their duties in accordance with the law. On the one hand, they should increase the crackdown on malicious infringement, repeated infringement, cross-border theft and other behaviors, apply punitive damages and injunctions in accordance with the law, and increase the cost of illegal activities; On the other hand, we should be good at promoting industry governance through individual cases, guiding enterprises to establish and improve confidentiality systems, and forming a virtuous cycle of "technology research and development judicial protection industrial upgrading". Only in this way can innovative entities dare to invest and focus on research and development, allowing new quality productivity to flourish on the fertile ground of the rule of law. (Outlook on the New Era) (Author Wang Huquan, Associate Professor at the School of Law (School of Intellectual Property) of China Jiliang University and Deputy Secretary General of the Science and Technology and Network Rule of Law Research Association of Zhejiang Law Society)