Crowell & Moring’s work on the DuPont v. Kolon matter, one of the largest trade secrets cases of its kind, was recognized at The American Lawyer’s third annual Global Legal Awards, winning “Global Dispute of the Year: U.S. Litigation.” The firm represented DuPont in recovering Kevlar® trade secrets stolen by a South Korean conglomerate. After
This past Friday, President Barack Obama and Chinese President Xi Jinping announced that the United States and China had reached a “common understanding” to fight state-sponsored, corporate cyber espionage between the countries.
During a joint press conference, President Obama said that “neither the U.S. nor the Chinese government will conduct or knowingly support cyber theft of intellectual property, including trade secrets or other confidential business information for commercial advantage.” President Jinping added that “both governments will not engage in or support online theft of intellectual property.”…
Editor’s Note: This is the third in a series of posts addressing how corporate victims of trade secrets theft can enforce their intellectual property rights through the criminal justice system. Prior posts can be found here and here.
Once a criminal investigation of trade secrets theft is underway, it’s not just a matter of the corporate victim passively watching the government pursue the case. Pro-active engagement is required to maximize the benefits of a criminal investigation and prosecution. But going about that the right way is an art form – there are many variables, unwritten rules, and traps for the inexperienced. Effectively managing such situations begins with an understanding of the corporate victim’s relationship with the government.…
The International Trade Commission (ITC) issued a Limited Exclusion Order (LEO) excluding imported crawler cranes from Chinese manufacturer Sany Heavy Industry Co that were designed and manufactured using the misappropriated trade secrets and patented inventions of Manitowoc Cranes. The Commission’s final determination in the In Re Certain Crawler Cranes and Components Thereof investigation (Inv. No. 337-TA-887) confirms that the ITC is a favorable forum in the fight against foreign intellectual property theft, especially in cases where jurisdiction may be difficult to establish in U.S. Courts.
The ITC issued its Final Determination affirming, in part, Administrative Law Judge Shaw’s Final Initial Determination that Chinese heavy machinery manufacturing company Sany Heavy Industry Co. had misappropriated Manitowoc Cranes trade secrets in developing its products, infringed on two of Maitowoc’s patents, and harmed the U.S. domestic crawler crane industry. The ITC determined that at least one product infringed certain claims of one of Manitowoc’s patents and that six trade secrets of Manitowac’s were protectable as trade secrets and misappropriated.
Editor’s Note: This is the second in a series of posts addressing how corporate victims of trade secrets theft can enforce their intellectual property rights through the criminal justice system. The introductory post can be found here.
The criminal enforcement landscape
The federal government has intensified its focus on intellectual property theft in recent years. For example, there is now an Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator in the White House, and an Intellectual Property Task Force within the Department of Justice. The Intellectual Property Rights Coordination Center spans some two-dozen federal agencies, and has public and stakeholder outreach as part of its mission. The fact that more trade secrets cases are being prosecuted is a direct reflection of these efforts. More agents and prosecutors have been made available, and the federal government has become more aggressive in going after foreign officials and state-owned entities despite the diplomatic implications. Domestic enforcement is on the rise as well, with more high-profile criminal trade secrets cases being brought than ever before.…
One remarkable aspect of the resolution announced last week in the long-running DuPont-Kolon trade secrets dispute is the transfer of $275 million to our client DuPont through the criminal restitution process. This highlights an option for corporate victims of trade secrets theft that is too often overlooked – initiation of criminal proceedings in parallel with civil litigation. In fact, in some cases, a criminal trade secrets theft investigation and prosecution may eliminate the need for costly civil litigation entirely.
Continue Reading Calling the Cops: Enforcing Trade Secret Rights Through Criminal Prosecution