8 Cited authorities

U.S. v. Williams
526 F.3d 1312 (11th Cir. 2008) Cited 387 times
Holding that, in assessing the defendant's history and characteristics, the district court reasonably emphasized his prior fraud-related crimes as an aggravating factor, even though his prior offenses had been relied upon in calculating the guideline range
Rockwell Graphic Systems, Inc. v. Dev Industries, Inc.
925 F.2d 174 (7th Cir. 1991) Cited 96 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that it was a jury question where plaintiff stamped drawings confidential, required employees and vendors to sign confidentiality agreements, kept documents in a vault guarded by a security officer, and retained original drawings
United States v. Kai-Lo Hsu
155 F.3d 189 (3d Cir. 1998) Cited 70 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that "Congress could not have intended [Economic Espionage Act] attempt crimes to be subject to the somewhat obscure and rarely used common law defense of legal impossibility"
U.S. v. Chung
659 F.3d 815 (9th Cir. 2011) Cited 45 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that the information at issue derived economic value from being kept a secret because “the information could assist a competitor in understanding how [the trade secret owner] approaches problem-solving and in figuring out how to best bid on a similar project in the future”
United States v. Avila
95 F.3d 887 (9th Cir. 1996) Cited 48 times
Reversing four-level role adjustment when evidence only showed that defendant acted as "go-between" for buyer and seller
Section 3553 - Imposition of a sentence
18 U.S.C. § 3553 Cited 76,604 times 111 Legal Analyses
Holding that district court must consider whether its decision will "protect the public from further crimes of the defendant"
Section 1832 - Theft of trade secrets
18 U.S.C. § 1832 Cited 407 times 94 Legal Analyses
Requiring that trade secret “relate to” or be “included in” product
Section 1831 - Economic espionage
18 U.S.C. § 1831 Cited 323 times 85 Legal Analyses
Holding liable for economic espionage "[w]hoever, intending or knowing that the offense will benefit any foreign government ... knowingly ... without authorization appropriates, takes, carries away, or conceals" trade secrets

USA v. Liew et al

8 Cited authorities

Holding that, in assessing the defendant's history and characteristics, the district court reasonably emphasized his prior fraud-related crimes as an aggravating factor, even though his prior offenses had been relied upon in calculating the guideline range

Holding that it was a jury question where plaintiff stamped drawings confidential, required employees and vendors to sign confidentiality agreements, kept documents in a vault guarded by a security officer, and retained original drawings

Holding that "Congress could not have intended [Economic Espionage Act] attempt crimes to be subject to the somewhat obscure and rarely used common law defense of legal impossibility"

Holding that the information at issue derived economic value from being kept a secret because “the information could assist a competitor in understanding how [the trade secret owner] approaches problem-solving and in figuring out how to best bid on a similar project in the future”

Reversing four-level role adjustment when evidence only showed that defendant acted as "go-between" for buyer and seller

Holding that district court must consider whether its decision will "protect the public from further crimes of the defendant"

Requiring that trade secret “relate to” or be “included in” product

Holding liable for economic espionage "[w]hoever, intending or knowing that the offense will benefit any foreign government ... knowingly ... without authorization appropriates, takes, carries away, or conceals" trade secrets