991 F.3d 198
D.C. Cir.2021Background
- Shan Shi founded CBMI (a U.S. subsidiary of a Chinese-backed company) to manufacture drill riser buoyancy modules (DRBMs) using syntactic foam; DRBM manufacturing relies on hard-to-make macrospheres and proprietary empirical data.
- Shi recruited former Trelleborg employees (Sam Ogoe, Gang Liu) who obtained and transmitted seven nonpublic documents and data from Trelleborg (density/pressure charts, testing procedures, recipes, cost spreadsheets).
- Trelleborg and other DRBM manufacturers used physical security, NDAs, and non-compete agreements and generally kept depth/density empirical data proprietary. Shi copied NDAs for CBMI and instructed employees to conceal sources.
- FBI arrested Shi and others in 2017; co-conspirators pleaded guilty or absconded; Shi was tried alone on a superseding indictment charging conspiracy to commit theft of trade secrets under 18 U.S.C. § 1832.
- After a 10-day jury trial and three days of deliberations, the jury convicted Shi on the conspiracy charge; the district court denied Rule 29 motions, entered judgment, and Shi appealed on sufficiency-of-the-evidence grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence sufficed to prove Shi entered an agreement to steal trade secrets | United States: testimony and circumstantial evidence (hiring ex-Trelleborg employees who said they could obtain data; instructions to replicate Trelleborg products; concealment) show a tacit agreement and knowing participation | Shi: co-conspirator testimony (Bo) denied an agreement; government lacks direct proof he joined a conspiracy; compares to Gaskins where evidence was insufficient | Court: Affirmed — jury reasonably inferred a tacit agreement from Ogoe/Liu hiring, their statements about sourcing Trelleborg data, Shi’s instructions and micromanagement; Gaskins is distinguishable. |
| Whether evidence sufficed to show Shi and at least one co-conspirator believed the targeted information were trade secrets (i.e., that owner took reasonable measures and information had economic value from secrecy) | United States: Shi’s factory visits, awareness of competitors’ security and NDAs, his copying of NDAs, and the nonpublic, valuable nature of empirical depth/density data support that he believed the info was secret and economically valuable | Shi: argues government failed to prove he or co-conspirators actually believed the documents were trade secrets; no one told Shi explicitly the docs were trade secrets; some data could be reverse‑engineered or is publicly available | Court: Affirmed — reasonable inferences from evidence (security measures, NDAs, testimony that info was withheld, Shi’s conduct) show Shi and Ogoe believed the information was secret and valuable; appellate court assumes belief standard for conspiracy cases. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Vega, 826 F.3d 514 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (standard of review: view evidence in light most favorable to government)
- United States v. Smith, 950 F.3d 893 (D.C. Cir. 2020) (elements for § 1832 conspiracy and sufficiency standard)
- United States v. Gaskins, 690 F.3d 569 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (reversal where no evidence linked defendant to narcotics conspiracy)
- United States v. Treadwell, 760 F.2d 327 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (affirmance on circumstantial evidence and managerial involvement)
- Curley v. United States, 160 F.2d 229 (D.C. Cir. 1947) (discussing equipoise rule and reasonable-doubt balancing)
- United States v. Nosal, 844 F.3d 1024 (9th Cir. 2016) (approving instruction that defendant’s belief information constituted trade secrets can suffice in conspiracy cases)