證據保全制度在智慧財產權保護事件，具有重要機能，一方面得避免證據滅失或礙難使用；另一方面，亦得使權利人與起訴前，藉由鑑定、勘驗或文書之提出，而確定事、物之現狀，以決定紛爭解決方式，避免無益訴訟之提起。但我國實務上，似乎仍多以避免證據滅失或礙難使用為理由而為證據保全，較忽略確定事、物現狀之機能。 在智慧財產權保護事件，為能有效率地掌握案情全貌，就確定事、物現狀之證據保全而言，宜擴大證據方法，不僅限於勘驗、鑑定或文書，亦宜承認能訊問證人或當事人本人。此外，現行民訴法之規定，未對證據保全裁定賦予強制力，在相對人拒絕提出文書或容忍勘驗，即無從發揮其機能，仍有所不足。智慧財產案件審理法已正視此問題，特別規定得強制相對人或第三人提出文書或進行物之勘驗。不過，如就證據保全裁定得施以強制力，基於類型審理論之觀點，應考量智慧財產權保護事件之特殊性，為維持公平之競爭秩序，避免證據保全制度被濫用，在證據保全之要件上予以特別規定，例如，明定應斟酌被告之業務祕密保護、智慧財產權侵害之狀態，基於利益衡量以決定是否許為證據保全。 在智慧財產權保護事件，一方面固然應使權利人能有效地掌握事、證，但另一方面，也應注意使他造當事人在證據上之業務祕密能受到保護。就此，絕對的保護方式，亦即，拒絕陳述或不提出文書、物件，宜僅限於在祕密保護有極大之利益下，始採行之。比較能兼顧真實發現與祕密保護之利益的方式，毋寧係採取相對的保護方式，亦即，對於法庭公開與當事人公開原則予以限制，視具體個案情形，限制當事人卷宗閱覽權、在場見證權，並由適當之訴訟代理人為維護當事人之聽審請求權、辯論權而閱覽卷宗、在場見證。且為限制祕密外洩，對於該人課以保密之義務。就此，智慧財產案件審理法新設有祕密保持命令，將來在實務上之運作及施行成效，仍有待持續關注。

Preservation of evidence is of paramount importance in intellectual property cases. On the one hand, it can avoid loss of evidence or difficulty to use it. One the other hand, it enables rights holders, before the institution of an action, to ensure the existing states of affairs by observation and examination of objects, expert testimony and documentary proof, so that they can choose a better dispute resolving route. But in practice, most rights holders apply preservation of evidence for the former sake, and ignore the latter function. In order to get the whole picture of casees more efficiently, it is recommended to expand means of evidence, including observation and examination of objects, expert testimony and documentary proof, as well as witnesses testimony and party testimony. Moreover, the current Code of Civil Procedure dose not provide court's order for the preservation of evidence enforcing power. This loophole becomes obvious if the opposing party refuses to submit documents or tolerate inquisition. It is now corrected by the Intellectual property Cases Trial Law. If the court's order for the preservation of evidence is to be given enforcing power, it necessitates special provision to maintain fair competition and to avoid evidence preservation mechanism being abused. For example, weather an application for preservation of evidence is to be granted, should depend on results of weighing between the defendant's business secrets and the gravity of IP rights infringement. Absolute protection business secrets is only in rare cases to be granted, where its interests outweighs all the other rights and interests.