How Will Criminal Trade Secret Prosecutions Fare Under President Trump?

by Perkins Coie
Contact

Perkins Coie

For many companies, protecting intellectual property is a significant concern made more difficult in recent years by the persistent efforts of foreign agents to steal valuable trade secrets. Analysis of public sources indicates that under the Obama administration, the U.S. government has made substantial efforts to combat this theft through an increase by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) in the number of criminal trade secret prosecutions. Now, with less than a month until President-elect Donald Trump takes office, the question becomes, will his administration follow suit? While the answer is uncertain, statements by the President-elect and his U.S. Attorney General nominee, Jeff Sessions, suggest that the Trump administration may be equally, if not more, likely to encourage prosecution of suspected trade secret theft, particularly when foreign nationals and national security are involved.

The Economic Espionage Act

The Economic Espionage Act (EEA) of 1996 criminalizes (1) theft of trade secrets for the benefit of a foreign entity (“economic espionage”), and (2) theft of trade secrets for pecuniary gain, regardless of who benefits (“trade secret theft”). Convictions under both offenses require the government to prove: (1) the defendant stole or, without authorization of the owner, obtained, destroyed or conveyed information; (2) the defendant knew this information was proprietary; and (3) the information was in fact a trade secret (a broadly defined term). To establish economic espionage, the government must also show that the defendant knew the offense would benefit, or was intended to benefit, a foreign government, foreign instrumentality or foreign agent.

On the other hand, establishing trade secret theft requires additional proof that (4) the defendant intended to convert the trade secret to the economic benefit of anyone other than the owner; (5) the defendant knew or intended that the owner of the trade secret would be injured; and (6) the trade secret was related to, or was included in a product that was produced or placed in, interstate or foreign commerce.

Both individuals and companies can be charged under the EEA for either offense. The DOJ advises its prosecutors, through its U.S. Attorneys’ Manual (which provides key policy guidance) to consider various discretionary factors before deciding whether to initiate a prosecution under the EEA, including: (a) the scope of the criminal activity, including evidence of involvement by a foreign government, foreign agent, or foreign instrumentality; (b) the degree of economic injury to the trade secret owner; (c) the type of trade secret misappropriated; (d) the effectiveness of available civil remedies; and (e) the potential deterrent value of the prosecution.

If charged and convicted of economic espionage, individuals face up to 15 years in prison and fines as high as $5 million; for trade secret theft, individuals face up to 10 years in prison and fines of not more than $250,000. On the other hand, organizations convicted of economic espionage face fines of up to $10 million or three times the value of the stolen trade secret, whichever is greater. The maximum fine for trade secret theft by an organization is $5 million.

Trade Secret Prosecutions Under the Obama Administration

Under the Obama administration, the U.S. government has consistently stressed the importance of protecting the intellectual property of U.S. companies. For example, in its February 2013 white paper titled, “Administration Strategy on Mitigating the Theft of U.S. Trade Secrets,” the Obama administration recognized that “trade secret theft threatens American businesses, undermines national security, and places the security of the U.S. economy in jeopardy.”

Consistent with such pronouncements, an extensive review of publicly available information regarding federal criminal trade secret investigations and prosecutions under the EEA indicates that the number of prosecutions during the Obama administration increased significantly compared to years prior. It was not possible to conduct an exhaustive analysis of all matters because recent indictments may still be under seal, and also because of the secrecy that typically shields from publicity matters that do not result in charges. A review of public sources, however, such as official press releases, federal district court dockets, news articles, and published case opinions, indicates that the government filed merely 96 criminal trade secret cases in the 13 years between 1996, when the EEA was enacted, and January 20, 2009, when President Obama took office (an average of 7.2 cases per year). In contrast, in the relatively short period since Obama took office, the government has brought 69 criminal trade secret cases (an average of 8.6 cases per year), which represents a 20% increase over the prior period. Further, these more recent prosecutions reflect some notable trends.

Increasing scale. First, federal trade secret prosecutions under the Obama administration have grown in scale, with more cases involving multiple defendants charged as participants in wide-ranging conspiracies to steal trade secrets. In the last eight years, roughly one out of every six federal criminal trade secret cases has involved charges against three or more defendants. That is more than three times the rate of multi-defendant trade secret prosecutions in the years before Obama took office, when only one in 20 cases involved three or more defendants. As a result, while the average number of federal trade secret cases filed each year has increased since Obama took office, the number of defendants charged across those cases has increased even more rapidly, by nearly 55% (from fewer than ten defendants per year, on average, between 1996 and 2001, to 15 defendants per year since 2009).

Moreover, many of these multi-defendant cases include charges against corporate defendants. For example, in 2012, in U.S. v. Kolon Industries, No. 3:12-cr-137 (E.D. Va.), the DOJ obtained an indictment charging South Korean company Kolon Industries, and five Kolon executives, with conspiring to steal trade secrets regarding DuPont’s Kevlar technology. Kolon Industries ultimately pleaded guilty to the conspiracy in April 2015, and was sentenced to pay $85 million in criminal fines and $275 million in restitution to DuPont.

Increasing focus on foreign nationals. Second, an increasing percentage of indictments under the EEA has involved foreign nationals stealing trade secrets from U.S. companies and attempting to transport the information to companies overseas. Just 45% of the federal trade secret cases filed in 2009 involved a defendant providing the stolen trade secrets to a foreign entity. By 2015, on the other hand, the beneficiary of the stolen trade secrets was a foreign company in over 83% of cases. In addition, in the overwhelming majority of these cases (71%), the individuals and companies involved have been Chinese. For example, as recently as 2016, prosecutors in U.S. v. Yu Xue, 2:16-cr-00022 (E.D. Pa.) charged GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) research scientists Yu Xue and Lucy Xi, along with three other Chinese nationals, with theft of trade secrets relating to the manufacturing process for various cancer treatment drugs GSK was developing. Xue and Xi allegedly provided the trade secrets to the other defendants, who worked for the Chinese startup Renopharma, which provides contract research services for early drug discovery. According to the indictment, Xue had an ownership interest in Renopharma, and hoped the company would profit from GSK’s proprietary information.

The government’s trend toward focusing its efforts on cases involving foreign nationals, while notable, is not surprising. After all, as discussed above, DOJ explicitly specifies that a key factor when deciding whether to bring charges under the EEA is “the scope of the criminal activity, including evidence of involvement by a foreign government, foreign agent, or foreign instrumentality.”

Greater role of Main Justice. Third, the last eight years have also seen DOJ’s headquarters’ component in Washington, DC (often referred to as “Main Justice”) taking a more active role in criminal trade secret prosecutions. During President Obama’s second term, the Criminal Division’s Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section and the National Security Division’s Counterintelligence and Export Control Section of Main Justice assisted U.S. Attorney’s Offices or took leading roles in the prosecution of more than 30% of EEA cases. In comparison, Main Justice was involved in only 20% of federal trade secret prosecutions between 2009 and 2012. Main Justice’s increased participation in recent EEA prosecutions appears to go hand-in-hand with the increase in cases involving foreign nationals, with Main Justice more likely to be involved when the theft of trade secrets involves foreign actors.

Increased emphasis on protecting military secrets. Finally, particularly in the past four years, the government has increased its focus on prosecuting theft of trade secrets from U.S. defense contractors and companies whose products have military applications. Since 2011, at least 11 EEA cases involving defense technology have been filed, and Main Justice took an active role in prosecuting more than half of them. For example, in 2015, in U.S. v. Wei Pang, No. 15-cr-00106, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of California charged six Chinese nationals with economic espionage for their role in stealing from their U.S. employers proprietary information about the companies’ “film bulk acoustic resonator” (FBAR) technology, which has applications in military communications. The defendants allegedly provided the stolen information to a Chinese state-owned university, which used the information to obtain military contracts. A May 19, 2015 DOJ press release announcing the charges notes that combatting such “complex foreign-government sponsored schemes” remains a top priority, as the theft of sensitive technology “undercut[s] our national security.” This focus on protecting sensitive military technology is consistent with the U.S. Attorneys’ Manual, which identifies the “type of trade secret misappropriated” as one of the discretionary factors to be considered when prosecutors are deciding whether to initiate a prosecution under the EEA.

Trade Secret Enforcement Under the Trump Administration

Given the expansion of criminal trade secret prosecutions by President Obama’s DOJ, what can we expect from President Trump? Evidence suggests that the new administration will take an equally, if not even more, aggressive approach to protecting intellectual property, particularly from foreign parties.

First, when campaigning, Trump signaled that his administration would “adopt a zero tolerance policy on intellectual property theft,” “enforce stronger protections against Chinese hackers,” and take “swift, robust and unequivocal” action in response to the theft of trade secrets. While campaign rhetoric is no ironclad commitment, it definitely holds predictive weight, particularly given the President-elect’s strong campaign statements about aggressively protecting American interests.

Second, as discussed above, theft of trade secrets by Chinese nationals has been a significant issue in recent years. This issue is unlikely to disappear any time soon, as is evidenced by the charges announced by DOJ, on December 27, 2016, against three Chinese nationals who hacked U.S. law firms in order to profit from non-public information on pending client mergers. Given Trump’s broader focus recently on the U.S. trade deficit with China, it can be assumed that he will continue to demand that Chinese nationals who manipulate that trade relationship by stealing trade secrets be held accountable for their actions. As he has stressed, “If China wants to trade with America, they must agree to stop stealing and to play by the rules.”

Finally, Trump’s selection of Jeff Sessions for Attorney General further suggests that DOJ will continue to focus on the EEA after Trump takes office. In fact, Senator Sessions co-sponsored the Federal Defend Trade Secrets Act, which became law this year. The statute creates a federal civil remedy for theft of trade secrets, in addition to the already-existing criminal penalties under the EEA.

In sum, companies should continue to expect that DOJ will respond to their concerns regarding trade secret theft under the Trump administration. Conversely, companies—especially multi-nationals or companies with strong overseas ties—should also be ready to respond to government scrutiny when questions arise regarding the provenance of trade secrets.

[View source.]

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Perkins Coie | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Perkins Coie
Contact
more
less

Perkins Coie on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):
hide

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.

Security

JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at info@jdsupra.com. In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: info@jdsupra.com.

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.