Journal of Intellectual Property (J Intellect Property; JIP)

KCI Indexed
OPEN ACCESS, PEER REVIEWED

pISSN 1975-5945
eISSN 2733-8487
Research Article

Protecting AI Model Weights as Trade Secrets: Statutory Requirements and Infringement Standards under Korea’s Unfair Competition Prevention Act

Associate, DLG Law Corporation, Republic of Korea

Correspondence to Na-Rae Kim (nrkim1217@gmail.com)

Volume 21, Number 3, Pages 375-391, September 2026.
Journal of Intellectual Property 2026;21(3):375-391. https://doi.org/10.34122/jip.2026.21.3.375
Received on July 31, 2026, Revised on August 03, 2026, Accepted on September 04, 2026, Published on September 30, 2026.
Copyright © 2026 Korea Institute of Intellectual Property.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided that the article is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.

Abstract

The core assets of the AI industry are shifting toward model weights, which are the final products of model training. Because model weights are difficult to protect under copyright or patent law, their protection in practice relies on trade secret protection under Korea’s Unfair Competition Prevention Act. Building on the technical characteristics of model weights, this study examines each statutory requirement for trade secret protection. Model weights constitute technical information; in closed-source deployment, secrecy can be maintained despite the theoretical possibility of extraction; and large-scale model licensing transactions demonstrate their independent economic value. Regarding secrecy management, the most contested requirement in determining trade secret status, this study argues that technical, contractual, and organizational measures must be comprehensively established and that their adequacy should be assessed using objective recognizability as the essential criterion. Drawing on recent U.S. disputes involving model extraction and knowledge distillation, the study further argues that violations of terms of service constitute improper means only insofar as the violated provisions function as secrecy-management measures. It also proposes a four-factor framework for assessing extraction: the legitimacy of access, the mode of conduct, the purpose and result, and awareness of protective measures. Finally, the study argues that transparency obligations and trade secret protection can coexist through controlled disclosures designed according to the recipient, scope, and conditions of disclosure.
Keywords

artificial intelligence, model weights, trade secret, Unfair Competition Prevention Act, knowledge distillation, reverse engineering, secrecy management

Notes

Conflicts of Interest

No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

Funding

The author received manuscript fees for this article from Korea Institute of Intellectual Property.

Section