Dowling v. United States

6 Analyses of this case by attorneys

  1. FinTech Update: New York’s Highest Court Upholds Conviction of Programmer Who Misappropriated Electronic Data

    K&L Gates LLPJoanna A. DiakosJuly 3, 2018

    [12] 18 U.S.C. § 2314. [13] 676 F.3d at 76. [14] Id. at 77 (citing Dowling v. United States, 473 U.S. 207, 216 (1985)). [15] Id. at 78.

  2. Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc. and Stryker Corp. v. Zimmer, Inc. (2016)

    McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLPKevin E. NoonanJune 14, 2016

    The opinion further distinguished apparently contrary precedent as being "not for the ages," Clark v. Wooster, 119 U. S. 322, 326 (1886), or being more properly directed to attorneys' fees awards, which are now the province of Section 285 of the Patent Act, such as Day v. Woodworth, 13 How. 363, 372 (1852), and Teese v. Huntingdon, 23 How. 2, 8–9 (1860). Finally, the Court found support for its interpretation of Section 284 in earlier cases directed to its proper ambit, such as Aro Mfg. Co. v. Convertible Top Replacement Co., 377 U. S. 476, 505, n. 20 (1964); Dowling v. United States, 473 U. S. 207, 227, n. 19 (1985); and Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Ed. Expense Bd. v. College Savings Bank, 527 U. S. 627, 648, n. 11 (1999).

  3. New York v. Aleynikov: New York State’s Penal Code (Like Federal Criminal Law) Does Not Cover Electronic Reproduction of Source Code

    McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLPJoshua RichSeptember 15, 2015

    The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit interpreted the EEA and the NSPA more narrowly than the trial court. It stressed that the EEA had been adopted as a response to the Supreme Court’s decision that the relevant section of the NSPA (18 U.S.C. § 2314) did not apply to purely intangible property, as found in Dowling v. United States, 473 U.S. 207 (1985).[5] It then considered the differences in language between the economic espionage provision of the EEA (18 U.S.C. § 1831) and the trade secrets provision (18 U.S.C. § 1832).

  4. Theft Offenses

    Garland, Samuel & Loeb, P.C.Don SamuelSeptember 1, 2015

    Relying on the decision in United States v. Bottone, 365 F.2d 389 (2d Cir. 1966), the court held that a person who memorizes a secret formula and sells it to a competitor has now stolen goods. See also Dowling v. United States, 473 U.S. 207 (1985) (Stolen Property Act does not apply to interstate bootleg record operation); United States v. Brown, 925 F.2d 1301 (10th Cir. 1991); United States v. Stafford, 136 F.3d 1109 (7th Cir. 1998). In short, the interstate transportation of stolen intangible property does not violate § 2314. (The court also noted that transporting the source code on a flash drive did not alter the result, because the flash drive was not the item alleged to be stolen).

  5. Another Aleynikov Trade Secrets Case Ends with Narrower Statute

    McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLPJoshua RichJuly 7, 2015

    The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit interpreted the EEA differently from the construction applied by the trial court. It stressed that the EEA had been adopted as a response to the Supreme Court's decision that the National Stolen Property Act (18 U.S.C. § 2314) did not apply to purely intangible property, as found in Dowling v. U.S., 473 U.S. 207 (1985). 676 F.3d 71, 78 (2d Cir. 2012).

  6. RICO and Data Thieves

    Dorsey & Whitney LLPNick AkermanFebruary 2, 2010

    The use of the mails or interstate wires, such as e-mailing from state to state in furtherance of the scheme, provides federal jurisdiction for the crime.In contrast to the mail and wire fraud statutes, the courts disagree on whether intangible computer data can be the property stolen or received in violation of ßß 2314 and 2315. Relying on Dowling v. U.S., 473 U.S. 207 (1985), which refused to apply ß 2314 to bootlegged movies, U.S. v. Brown, 925 F.2d 1301, 1307-8 (10th Cir. 1991), held that computer information “is an intangible intellectual property” and is not “goods, wares or merchandise” within the meaning of ßß 2314 and 2315.An exception exists, however, when, “there has been ‘some tangible item taken, however insignificant or valueless, it may be.’ ” U.S. v. Martin, 228 F.3d 1, 14-15 (1st Cir. 2000). Thus, if an employee steals data worth $5,000 or more from the company computers and also steals the disk upon which he stores the stolen data and takes the disk to another state, the theft violates ß 2314.The 2d U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejects this distinction between tangible and intangible property and applies the statutes to the theft of computer data.