## Facts

- Matthew R. Lange worked as a drafter for Replacement Aircraft Parts Co. (RAPCO), an aftermarket aircraft-parts manufacturer.
- RAPCO reverse engineered original parts to produce FAA-compliant replacements, generating proprietary measurements, drawings, and manufacturing/process information developed through experimentation (e.g., alloys and production methods).
- Lange copied RAPCO computer data containing this engineering and process information.
- Lange attempted to sell the copied data to a RAPCO competitor without RAPCO’s consent.
- The government charged Lange under 18 U.S.C. § 1832 (Economic Espionage Act), which criminalizes theft and attempted sale or dissemination of trade secrets.
- Lange conceded his conduct would violate § 1832 if the information qualified as a “trade secret,” but argued the data did not meet the definition in 18 U.S.C. § 1839(3).

## Issues

1. Whether RAPCO’s engineering and manufacturing information was a “trade secret” under 18 U.S.C. § 1839(3), including whether it was not generally known to, and not readily ascertainable through proper means by, “the public.”
2. Whether RAPCO took “reasonable measures” to maintain the secrecy of the information as required by § 1839(3)(A).

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit affirmed Lange’s conviction.
- The court held the stolen RAPCO information satisfied § 1839(3)’s definition of “trade secret.”
- The court rejected the argument that the information was effectively public or “readily ascertainable” merely because reverse engineering was possible.
- The court concluded RAPCO’s confidentiality practices were sufficient under the statute’s reasonable-measures requirement.

## Legal Principles

- Under the Economic Espionage Act, technical and engineering information stored digitally may qualify as a “trade secret” if the owner uses reasonable secrecy measures and the information derives independent economic value from not being generally known and not being readily ascertainable by the public.
- “Not readily ascertainable” does not mean “impossible to discover”; information may remain a trade secret even if reverse engineering is lawful in theory, when obtaining the information would require substantial time, expense, experimentation, and expertise.
- “The public” in § 1839(3) is not limited to the most sophisticated competitors; the inquiry is whether the information is generally accessible and easily obtainable through proper means.
- Evidence that the information provides a head start or competitive advantage—and that a competitor would pay for it—supports the finding of independent economic value.
- The statute requires reasonable, not perfect, secrecy; limiting access and keeping data within company systems can satisfy § 1839(3)(A).

## Conclusion

The court upheld a federal trade-secret theft conviction where an employee copied specialized FAA-related engineering and process data and tried to sell it, holding that such information remains a trade secret when reasonably protected and not practically obtainable by the public through proper means, even if reverse engineering is theoretically possible.


United States v. Lange, 312 F.3d 263 (7th Cir. 2002)