It depends on whether the knowledge is of the company's own product, process or procedures and is not commonly held in the industry. Knowledge of the company's proprietary parameters can qualify; knowledge of how freezers generally work cannot.
The test is company-specific, not difficulty
Hypothetical example: a Mission process engineer has spent three years tuning the company's freezing tunnel to its own berry varieties and wrote the internal calibration procedure that other plants in the group now follow. That knowledge is of the petitioner's process and procedures, it is documented as internal, and few people hold it. Contrast an engineer whose expertise is in freezer maintenance generally, who could be replaced by hiring from a competitor.
The regulation asks for special knowledge of the company's product and its application in international markets, or an advanced level of knowledge of the company's processes and procedures. Neither requires that the knowledge be unique in the world, but both require that it be the petitioner's and not the industry's. The petition should explain how the knowledge was acquired, why it is needed in the U.S.
role and why a locally hired engineer could not step in without significant training. Hypothetical example: A dental-laboratory group wants to transfer a technician who developed the firm's proprietary shade-matching workflow and trains only senior staff. The first review should identify the workflow's source, restricted access, training history and business use, then compare that knowledge with ordinary laboratory skills.
Internal manuals, access controls and evidence of who can perform the work settle the point. The employee still needs a continuous qualifying foreign year in the applicable three-year period, and the U.S. job must use the special company knowledge.
A claim fails when it merely relabels experience common to the trade as proprietary expertise.