Court Opinion

ID: 9495575
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 16:06:16.17753+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:57:06.012607
License: Public Domain

RIPPLE, Circuit Judge,
concurring.
I concur in the judgment of the court. I write separately because the panel majority’s opinion deals with several matters that are not necessarily raised by this case, and, in my view, it is imprudent to confront these issues prematurely.
The panel majority notes that the Economic Espionage Act, in defining “trade secret,” includes as an ingredient that
the information derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable through proper means by, the public[.]
18 U.S.C. § 1839(3)(B). This portion of the definition of a trade secret differs markedly from the definition found in the Uniform Trade Secrets Act. The analogous language, found at section 1(4) of the Uniform Act, provides that the information must
derive[ ] independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable by proper means by, other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use[.]
Unif. Trade Secrets Act, § 1(4) (amended 1985), 14 U.L.A. 438 (1979).
The panel majority declares that this textual difference is of no significance because the phrase “the public” in the federal statute is simply shorthand for the longer phrase of the Uniform Act. Therefore, the panel majority concludes, “the public” ought to be read “the economically relevant public.” (Op. at 267). Because Mr. Lange offered information that was unknown to both competitors and to the general public, there is no reason to confront this issue in this case, and, because the correctness of the panel majority’s reading of the evidence is not self-evident, we ought not to reject out-of-hand the position of the United States when there is no necessity to do so.
The panel majority bases its reading of the federal statute on its conclusion that “[sjection 1839(3) was derived from the definition of a trade secret in the Uniform Trade Secrets Act.” (Op. at 267). An examination of the House Report accompanying the statute describes, however, a somewhat more nuanced relationship between the two definitions. Notably, the Report states that the definition of “trade secret” in the federal statute is “based largely” on the definition of that term in the Uniform Trade Secrets Act. H.R.Rep. No. 104-788, at 12 (1996), U.S. Code Cong. & Admin. News 4021, 4030-31. The report goes on to say in the paragraphs immediately following that “information which is generally known to the public, or which the public can readily ascertain through proper means, does not satisfy the definition of trade secret under this section.” Id. at 13, U.S. Code Cong. & Admin. News at 4031.
Our normal approach to statutory interpretation is to assume that Congress intended what it wrote. Here, the words of the statute are clear on their face. Moreover, the pertinent legislative history supports reliance on the plain wording. Cf *272Griffin v. Oceanic Contractors, Inc., 458 U.S. 564, 574, 102 S.Ct. 3245, 73 L.Ed.2d 973 (1982) (“Resort to the legislative history, therefore, merely confirms that Congress intended the statute to mean exactly what its plain language says.”)- Congress used the Uniform Act’s definition of “trade secret” as a guide, but it did not adopt it. Instead, Congress made its own choices as to those aspects of the Uniform Act’s definition that ought to be adopted and those that needed alteration before incorporation into the federal statute. I see no reason to reject so swiftly and gratuitously the plain wording of the statute, the supportive legislative history,1 the interpretation of the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in United States v. Hsu, 155 F.3d 189, 196-97 (3d Cir.1998), and the interpretation of the Executive Branch set forth in the Government’s brief.
I would also defer announcing any limitations on the law of attempt as it applies to the Economic Espionage Act in advance of the necessity of doing so. The considered judgment of another circuit to the contrary particularly counsels restraint in this respect. See Hsu, 155 F.3d at 198-203. In this case, there is no question that the information Mr. Lange offered for sale was a trade secret. We therefore need not decide whether a defendant can be found guilty of an attempt when no such secret exists.
For these reasons, I concur in the judgment, but must respectfully decline from joining the panel discussion of matters not necessary for decision today, especially when the correctness of those pronouncements is questionable.

. I note that legislative history is employed here merely to confirm the plain wording of the statutory language in the face of a reading that can find no justification in the plain wording, the legislative history or any other recognized tool of statutory construction.