## Facts

- Hanjuan Jin, a Motorola software engineer (1998–2007), worked on Motorola’s iDEN cellular telecommunications system and had access to internal technical materials.
- After extended time in China during medical leave, Jin sought employment with a Chinese telecommunications firm associated with defense-related work.
- Upon returning to the United States in early 2007, Jin bought a one-way ticket to China departing within days.
- During the short period before departure, she downloaded thousands of internal Motorola documents marked proprietary; the prosecution relied on three specific iDEN documents as trade secrets.
- At O’Hare International Airport, customs agents stopped Jin as she attempted to board her flight; she possessed a large cache of Motorola documents and about $31,000 in cash.
- Jin told agents she had the documents to “refresh her knowledge” of iDEN.
- The government alleged she intended to take the documents to benefit a prospective employer and harm Motorola by enabling unauthorized use of Motorola’s proprietary technology.

## Issues

1. Whether the iDEN documents constituted “trade secrets” under 18 U.S.C. § 1839(3), including independent economic value from secrecy and reasonable secrecy measures.
2. Whether the evidence proved theft of trade secrets under 18 U.S.C. § 1832, including intent to confer an economic benefit on a non-owner and intent or knowledge that Motorola would be injured.
3. Whether the district court erred in imposing a 48-month sentence, including reliance on foreign-benefit and national-security-related considerations in guideline application and sentencing factors.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit affirmed Jin’s conviction for theft of trade secrets under 18 U.S.C. § 1832.
- The court held the iDEN materials at issue qualified as trade secrets within the Economic Espionage Act’s statutory definition.
- The court found sufficient circumstantial evidence that Jin intended to confer an economic benefit on herself and a non-owner entity and intended or knew Motorola would be injured.
- The court held Jin’s acquittal on economic espionage under 18 U.S.C. § 1831 was not inconsistent with the § 1832 conviction because § 1831 requires proof of intent to benefit a foreign government or instrumentality.
- The Seventh Circuit affirmed the 48-month sentence as procedurally and substantively reasonable, including consideration at sentencing of foreign-benefit context supported by the record.

## Legal Principles

- Information may qualify as a “trade secret” under 18 U.S.C. § 1839(3) when it is non-public technical material with independent economic value due to secrecy and the owner uses reasonable measures to maintain confidentiality.
- Under 18 U.S.C. § 1832, intent to confer an economic benefit on someone other than the owner and intent/knowledge of injury to the owner may be proven through circumstantial evidence, including timing, volume and sensitivity of documents, travel plans, and employment plans.
- Acquittal on 18 U.S.C. § 1831 does not bar conviction under § 1832 because § 1831 requires a distinct, higher showing: intent to benefit a foreign government, instrumentality, or agent.
- At sentencing, a court may consider foreign-benefit and security-related facts supported by the evidence under the applicable sentencing standard, even if those facts did not result in conviction on a separate count.

## Conclusion

The Seventh Circuit upheld a trade-secret theft conviction and 48-month sentence where proprietary, non-public iDEN technical documents were taken shortly before a one-way departure to China, and circumstantial evidence supported findings of trade-secret status, intent to benefit a non-owner, and anticipated injury to the owner.


United States v. Jin, 733 F.3d 718 (7th Cir. 2013)