Opinion ID: 2982422
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Intent to Convert

Text: Defendants next argue that the government failed to establish they had intent to convert trade secrets and injure GM, as required under the statute. Qin argues that he had no way of knowing the GM documents contained trade secrets and that he possessed them in order to help Du work through and understand the source code. (Qin First Br. at 53.) For her part, Du argues that her possession was innocent and she took no part in Qin’s venture with Chery. (Du First Br. at 53.) While Defendants raised these defenses at trial, the government for its part introduced evidence to the contrary from which the jury could have inferred intent. Its witnesses testified that Du had downloaded thousands of GM documents—including more than a dozen identified at trial as containing trade secrets—onto personal devices that she shared with her husband. Many of these did not relate to her work for GM. In addition, a government witness testified that Defendants’ company, MTI, had already used trade secrets information in the GM files for another MTI project relating to hybrid motor technology. (See R. 202 at 96–116, 3785-3805; R. 203 at 3934-38.) Emails, documents, and testimony also showed that—while Du was taking GM documents home with her—Defendants were putting together a joint venture to develop and manufacture hybrid motor control systems for Chery Automobile, and that they did not have the expertise or resources to do this without a head-start based on GM’s technology. For instance, a Page 15 of 27 United States v. Du, Qin, Case Nos. 13-1606/ 1607/ 1778/ 1781 business plan drafted by Defendants’ business partner in China explained that the joint venture aimed to “absorb the most advanced technologies in both China and the U.S.” and specifically discussed GM’s roll-out of a hybrid truck with similar motor technology. (Govt. Exhibits 76 & 77, R. 250-1 at 25–38, Page ID#5174–87.) He also drafted a white paper detailing the joint venture’s plan to roll out commercial production of the motor technology over the course of three years (Govt. Exhibit 46.4, R. 250-1 at 9–10, Page ID# 5158–59)—an aggressive timeframe that the government’s expert witness testified could not be met by the joint venture’s small group of engineers alone (R. 204 at 135–41, Page ID#4089–95). The expert witness also testified that Qin and his Chinese partner lacked the qualifications to develop the motor control program for the technology, which was similar to GM motor control technology, despite differences in the motors’ location. (Id.) As to Qin’s argument that he did not intend to convert the GM trade secrets because he could not have known the documents contained secret information, this is undermined by his experience as an engineer—experience that his own lawyer touted repeatedly at trial. Cf. United States v. Krumrei, 258 F.3d 535, 539 (6th Cir. 2001) (holding that a “defendant need not have been aware of the particular security measures taken” to secure trade secret information in order to meet the required knowledge “that the information was proprietary”). And while Du argues she was an innocent bystander to Qin’s scheme, sufficient evidence existed of her involvement. The original business plan for the joint venture—drafted while she worked at GM—named her as one of three company officers. (Id. at 33–35.) In addition, the government showed evidence that she was involved in MTI’s work and was its president during the time she took control of the GM information. Page 16 of 27 United States v. Du, Qin, Case Nos. 13-1606/ 1607/ 1778/ 1781 Ultimately, sufficient evidence supported Defendants’ convictions on the theft of trade secrets charges.