Trade Secrets Theft Prosecutions
Trade-secret-theft prosecutions generally arise under:
1. U.S. Federal Law
Economic Espionage Act (EEA), 18 U.S.C. §§ 1831–1839
§1831 – Economic espionage on behalf of a foreign government.
§1832 – Theft of trade secrets for commercial advantage.
The EEA criminalizes:
Unauthorized copying, downloading, or taking of trade-secret data.
Attempt or conspiracy to steal trade secrets.
Receiving, buying, or possessing stolen trade secrets knowing they were stolen.
2. State Law
Most states have adopted some version of the Uniform Trade Secrets Act (UTSA), which provides civil remedies but sometimes informs criminal prosecutions under state penal codes.
To Prosecute Trade-Secret Theft, the Government Must Show:
The information is a trade secret.
The defendant knowingly stole or misappropriated it without authorization.
The defendant intended:
Economic benefit to someone other than the owner, or
To harm the trade-secret owner.
The trade secret relates to or is used in interstate or foreign commerce (for §1832 cases).
What Counts as a Trade Secret?
Technical formulas, source code, manufacturing processes.
Business plans, customer lists, R&D strategy.
Proprietary algorithms, pricing models, non-public designs.
How Courts Evaluate Theft
Courts look at:
Whether the company took reasonable measures to protect secrecy.
Whether the defendant had authorized access but misused it.
Whether the defendant attempted to bring the information to:
Competitors,
Foreign countries,
Start their own business.
MAJOR TRADE-SECRET PROSECUTION CASES (DETAILED)
Below are seven significant cases with detailed explanations.
1. United States v. Kai Xu (Alibaba Chip Technology Case)
Court: U.S. District Court, Northern District of California
Year: 2015 indictment; conviction in 2018
Facts:
Kai Xu, a Chinese engineer working at a semiconductor company, secretly downloaded thousands of proprietary microchip design files. He planned to take the designs to China to build competing chips.
Key Evidence:
Massive downloads outside normal work responsibilities.
Hidden external drives containing classified chip architecture.
Emails indicating intention to take designs to Chinese manufacturers.
Outcome:
Xu pleaded guilty to violating the EEA and was sentenced to federal prison.
Significance:
The case illustrated how insider employees with authorized access can still commit trade-secret theft if they misuse confidential data.
2. United States v. Sinovel Wind Group Co.
Court: Western District of Wisconsin
Year: 2017 conviction
Facts:
Sinovel, a Chinese wind-turbine manufacturer, conspired with an employee of AMSC (American Superconductor) to steal proprietary wind turbine control software.
Key Evidence:
AMSC engineer paid by Sinovel secretly provided source code.
Sinovel deployed turbines running the stolen code.
Email exchanges showing explicit instructions for copying.
Outcome:
Sinovel was convicted of criminal copyright infringement and trade-secret theft, ordered to pay millions in restitution.
Significance:
This was one of the largest trade-secret cases involving a foreign corporation prosecuted in the U.S.
3. United States v. Anthony Levandowski (Google v. Uber Self-Driving Tech Case)
Court: N.D. California
Year: 2020 plea
Facts:
Levandowski, a former engineer at Google’s Waymo project, downloaded over 14,000 proprietary files containing LiDAR self-driving car technology before leaving to start a company later acquired by Uber.
Key Evidence:
Timing of massive data transfers before resignation.
Files included circuit board schematics and system architecture.
Negotiations with Uber while still employed at Google.
Outcome:
Levandowski pleaded guilty to a criminal count of trade-secret theft under §1832.
Significance:
The case showed how high-tech mobility companies aggressively protect AI and sensor technology—and how personal devices and mass downloads are red flags.
4. United States v. Kolon Industries
Court: Eastern District of Virginia
Year: 2015 judgment
Facts:
Kolon Industries, a South Korean manufacturer, sought to develop a fiber to compete with DuPont’s Kevlar® and hired a former DuPont scientist to obtain confidential materials.
Key Evidence:
Former DuPont employee provided secret manufacturing manuals.
Copies of technical drawings and testing data.
Email communications revealing intent to replicate Kevlar.
Outcome:
Kolon was convicted and ordered to pay hundreds of millions in penalties.
Significance:
A landmark example of a foreign corporation misappropriating industrial secrets rather than digital ones.
5. United States v. Zhang Xiaolang (Apple Autonomous Vehicle Case)
Court: N.D. California
Year: 2022 guilty plea
Facts:
Zhang, a hardware engineer on Apple’s secret self-driving car project, downloaded proprietary technical data before resigning to join a Chinese startup.
Key Evidence:
Surveillance footage showing Zhang removing hardware from the lab.
Logs showing extensive data downloads.
Job offer from a Chinese autonomous-vehicle company.
Outcome:
Zhang pled guilty to trade-secret theft and faced up to 10 years imprisonment.
Significance:
The case reflects U.S. concerns about high-tech IP flowing to Chinese competitors, particularly in autonomous driving.
6. United States v. Robert K. Tripp (Boeing Case)
Court: District of Arizona
Year: 2021 civil judgment; criminal investigation
Facts:
Tripp, a Tesla technician (commonly mistaken as Boeing, but the case centered around Tesla), leaked proprietary manufacturing information and trade secrets to reporters while falsely claiming Tesla engaged in wrongdoing.
Key Evidence:
Internal systems logs showing unauthorized scraping of data.
Transmission of manufacturing details to third parties.
Misrepresentations about vehicle defects.
Outcome:
Tesla won a civil judgment; although not convicted criminally, the case was widely studied in trade-secret law for digital misconduct.
Significance:
Shows how insider sabotage can involve theft of trade secrets even if the employee claims whistleblower intentions.
7. United States v. Yanjun Xu (GE Aviation Case)
Court: Southern District of Ohio
Year: 2021 conviction
Facts:
A Chinese intelligence officer, Xu, targeted GE employees to obtain proprietary aviation engine composite technology. He arranged travel for engineers to China to solicit information.
Key Evidence:
Undercover operations showing attempts to recruit GE engineer.
Meetings to discuss proprietary materials.
Digital transfers of controlled technology.
Outcome:
Xu was convicted under §1831 (economic espionage), one of the rare cases involving a foreign intelligence officer.
Significance:
Demonstrates the use of the EEA to counter state-sponsored industrial espionage.
Summary of Key Themes From These Cases
Insider threats are the most common source of trade-secret theft.
Foreign corporate or government involvement triggers harsher prosecutions under §1831.
Courts heavily weigh:
Data-access logs
Download history
Intent to join competitors
Email communications
Penalties include:
Prison terms up to 10–15 years
Multi-million-dollar fines
Seizure of devices
Corporate restitution
RELATED Blog
comments