劳动者违反竞业限制义务的，违约金如何确定？

案例一 某电气公司诉陈某等19名员工竞业限制纠纷案

基本案情

某电气公司系国际知名吸尘器领域企业，与其研发部陈某等19名技术人员订有《保密协议》，明确从在职期间开始补偿并设定

离职后的竞业限制条款。后陈某等19名技术人员在短期内相继辞职，陆续加入第三方公司设在苏州的子公司。不久后，该第三

方公司即开始在电商平台销售具有类似技术特征的吸尘器产品。电气公司知悉后，要求该19名离职技术人员返还已付竞业限制

经济补偿，支付竞业限制违约金并继续履行《保密协议》中的竞业限制义务。

裁判结果

法院经审理认为，竞业限制义务人违反竞业限制义务给企业造成的损失难以确定，且其又主张约定的竞业限制违约金过高要求减

少的，应当综合考虑企业竞业限制补偿情况、商业秘密等涉密事项形成成本与市场价值、劳动者违约情节与恶意程度，以及劳动

者履行能力等要素，在适度体现对违约行为惩罚性的前提下，判令涉案员工合计支付违约金340万元，并继续履行竞业限制义务

至约定期限届满。

典型意义

近年来，苏州聚焦产业迭代升级和集群创新能力提升，大力营造创业创新氛围，全力打造全球高端制造业基地。本案相较于一般

竞业限制纠纷，呈现出相约型、团队化、隐蔽性的新特点，19名技术人员陆续“借壳出走”规避竞业限制义务。本案旨在保护商

业秘密与自由择业、竞业限制和人才合理流动之间寻求最佳平衡点，以高质量司法服务保障苏州数字经济时代产业创新集群融合

发展。

How is the liquidated damages determined when an employee breaches non-compete obligations?

Suzhou Intermediate People's Court

Case Study 1: An Electrical Company vs. Chen X et al., 19 Employees

Non-Compete Dispute Case

Basic Facts

An electrical company, an internationally renowned enterprise in the vacuum cleaner industry, had signed a "Confidentiality Agreement" with 19 technicians from its R&D department, which stipulated compensation starting from their employment period and set forth non-compete clauses 

after their resignation. Subsequently, these 19 technicians resigned within a short period and successively joined a subsidiary 

of a third-party company established in Suzhou. Soon after, this third-party company began selling vacuum cleaner products 

with similar technical features on e-commerce platforms. Upon discovering this, the electrical company demanded that the 

19 former technicians return the paid non-compete compensation, pay liquidated damages for breaching the non-compete 

obligation, and continue to fulfill the non-compete obligations stipulated in the "Confidentiality Agreement."

Judgment Result

After hearing the case, the court held that it was difficult to determine the losses suffered by the company due to the breach 

of non-compete obligations by the obligors, and considering that they also claimed that the agreed liquidated damages for 

the non-compete breach were excessively high and requested a reduction, the court should comprehensively consider factors 

such as the company's non-compete compensation, the formation cost and market value of trade secrets and other confidential 

matters, the severity and malice of the employees' breach, as well as their ability to perform, and under the premise of appropriately 

reflecting the punitive nature of the breach, ordered the involved employees to pay a total of 3.4 million yuan in liquidated damages 

and continue to fulfill their non-compete obligations until the expiration of the agreed term.

Typical Significance

In recent years, Suzhou has focused on industrial iteration and upgrading, as well as the enhancement of cluster innovation 

capabilities, vigorously fostering an entrepreneurial and innovative atmosphere, and striving to build a global high-end manufacturing 

base. Compared to general non-compete disputes, this case presents new characteristics of being pre-arranged, team-oriented, and 

concealed, with 19 technicians successively "leaving under the guise of another company" to circumvent non-compete obligations. 

This case aims to seek the best balance between protecting trade secrets and free career choice, non-compete restrictions, and the 

reasonable mobility of talent, providing high-quality judicial services to support the integrated and innovative cluster development 

of Suzhou's industries in the digital economy era.

------------------------------------------------------------

你可能还会感兴趣的话题：

离职2个月才发竞业限制通知，怎么办？

如何知道离职员工去了哪家公司？

如何调查获取员工违反竞业协议？

很多人跳槽不怕竞业协议吗？

发现前员工违反竞业协议如何取证？

离职时HR说竞业协议不生效？