## Facts

- Hanjuan Jin, a Motorola software engineer in the iDEN division, had access to proprietary technical materials subject to confidentiality agreements and restricted-access policies.
- Motorola used multiple secrecy measures, including confidentiality legends on documents, need-to-know access limits, and physical security controls.
- During a medical leave, Jin spent substantial time in China and, while still employed by Motorola, negotiated and accepted employment with Sun Kaisens, a Chinese telecommunications company with ties to Chinese military work; evidence also connected her to another telecom entity, Lemko, that competed with Motorola.
- After returning briefly to Motorola in late February 2007, Jin downloaded thousands of internal documents focused on iDEN technology; the prosecution emphasized three key technical documents containing highly detailed iDEN design/performance information and source code.
- Jin collected both electronic and printed copies of the documents and planned to use them to prepare for work at Sun Kaisens.
- On February 28, 2007, Jin attempted to board a one-way flight from Chicago to China carrying printed Motorola documents, electronic storage media, and approximately $31,000 in cash.
- During inspection and questioning, agents found Motorola documents marked confidential/proprietary and Chinese military documents; Jin made false statements about her employment plans, the documents’ purpose, and her relationships with Chinese telecommunications entities.

## Issues

1. Whether the Motorola iDEN documents constituted “trade secrets” under 18 U.S.C. § 1839(3), including whether they retained independent economic value and were protected by reasonable secrecy measures.
2. Whether Jin violated 18 U.S.C. § 1832 by stealing or misappropriating trade secrets to confer an economic benefit on someone other than Motorola, while intending or knowing the offense would injure Motorola.
3. Whether Jin committed economic espionage under 18 U.S.C. § 1831 by acting with intent or knowledge that the misappropriation would benefit a foreign government, foreign instrumentality, or foreign agent, specifically the People’s Republic of China.

## Decision

- After a bench trial, the court found Jin guilty on three counts of theft of trade secrets under 18 U.S.C. § 1832.
- The court found Jin not guilty on three counts of economic espionage under 18 U.S.C. § 1831.
- The court concluded the evidence proved theft to benefit non-Motorola recipients and to injure Motorola, but did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Jin intended or knew the offense would benefit a foreign government or its instrumentalities.

## Legal Principles

- Information qualifies as a trade secret under the EEA if it derives actual or potential independent economic value from not being generally known and is subject to reasonable measures to maintain secrecy.
- Older or “legacy” technology may still be a trade secret if it retains actual or potential economic value, including value in foreign markets or future development.
- Under § 1832, the government must prove misappropriation of a trade secret with intent to confer an economic benefit on someone other than the owner and with intent or knowledge that the offense will injure the owner; intent may be inferred from circumstantial evidence such as timing, volume, destination travel, and false statements.
- Section 1831 requires a distinct, higher showing: the defendant must intend or know that the offense will benefit a foreign government, foreign instrumentality, or foreign agent; suspicious foreign-company ties alone are insufficient without a concrete nexus to foreign-government benefit.
- Conduct can satisfy § 1832 (commercial theft of trade secrets) without satisfying § 1831 (economic espionage tied to foreign sovereign benefit).

## Conclusion

The court convicted Jin of theft of Motorola trade secrets because the documents retained economic value, were protected by reasonable secrecy measures, and the evidence supported an intent to benefit non-Motorola entities and to injure Motorola; it acquitted her of economic espionage because the government failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the theft was intended to benefit the Chinese government or its instrumentalities.


United States v. Jin, 833 F. Supp. 2d 977 (N.D. Ill. 2012)