Haoyang Yu worked for Analog Devices, Inc. (ADI), a manufacturer of specialized microchips used in infrastructure and defense. While employed, Yu downloaded proprietary design files, including the GDS file for the HMC1022A microchip, and retained them after leaving the company. He subsequently used these files to manufacture and sell competing microchips through a new company he established. Yu was indicted on twenty-one counts, including theft of trade secrets, wire fraud, and illegal exports of controlled technology. A jury convicted him only on the count of unlawful possession of a stolen trade secret. Yu appealed, arguing the evidence was insufficient to prove the file was a trade secret and that he was selectively prosecuted and investigated based on his Chinese ethnicity.
The court addressed two primary issues: the sufficiency of the evidence and the claim of selective enforcement. Regarding sufficiency, the court applied a standard viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution. First, it rejected Yu's argument that the indictment was ambiguous regarding whether he possessed a prototype or the final product, finding the indictment clearly referred to the specific file he downloaded. Second, the court held that the file retained its status as a trade secret even after the final product was released to the public. The evidence showed that reverse-engineering the complex microchip design from the physical chip required significant time, expense, and skill, meaning the information was not 'readily ascertainable.' Third, the court found sufficient evidence that Yu knew the files were trade secrets, inferred from his signed confidentiality agreements and his efforts to conceal the files by renaming them and keeping his new company secret. On the equal protection claims, the court distinguished between selective prosecution and selective enforcement. For selective prosecution, the court reaffirmed that a defendant must present 'clear evidence' that similarly situated individuals of a different race were not prosecuted. Yu failed to meet this high burden because his proposed comparators were not sufficiently similar, particularly regarding the involvement of export controls and foreign entities. For selective enforcement, the court clarified that the standard is lower, requiring only a 'preponderance of the evidence,' as law enforcement officers do not have the same absolute immunity as prosecutors. However, the court found no error in the district court's conclusion that law enforcement would have investigated Yu regardless of his ethnicity due to the nature of the stolen technology and his ties to China.
The decision affirms the conviction and sentence of Haoyang Yu, including his imprisonment and restitution order. It establishes that complex microchip designs retain trade secret protection even after public release if they cannot be easily reverse-engineered. The ruling also clarifies the evidentiary standards for equal protection claims in criminal cases, setting a high bar for selective prosecution claims while lowering the burden for selective enforcement claims to a preponderance of the evidence standard.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download