United States v. Jin

833 F. Supp. 2d 977 (2012)

From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

United States v. Jin

United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
833 F. Supp. 2d 977 (2012)

  • Written by Tammy Boggs, JD

Facts

In 1998, Hanjuan Jin (defendant) began working as a software engineer for Motorola, a major telecommunications company. Motorola took numerous physical security measures and required employees to sign confidentiality agreements to protect Motorola’s trade secrets. During a one-year medical leave of absence that began in February 2006, Jin negotiated an agreement to work for Sun Kaisens, a telecommunications company based in China that developed products for the Chinese military. After accepting employment with Sun Kaisens, Jin briefly returned to Motorola in February 2007 and, over the course of a few days, secretly downloaded thousands of Motorola’s documents, including three technical trade-secret documents (Moto documents). Jin continued downloading Motorola’s documents after submitting her resignation. Jin made sure she had both printed and electronic copies of the Moto documents, and she planned to use them to prepare herself for her employment with Sun Kaisens. The Moto documents were marked as “confidential” with an advisal that disclosure could seriously affect the company’s welfare and financial security. Thereafter, Jin tried to board a flight for China with the Moto documents but was stopped by authorities. Upon questioning, Jin lied to border-patrol and federal law-enforcement agents. The United States charged Jin with theft of trade secrets and economic espionage as to the three Moto documents in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1831 (economic espionage) and 1832 (theft of trade secrets). The court held a bench trial.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Castillo, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 810,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 810,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 810,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership