IP Law Daily, TRADE SECRETS—1st Cir.: Conviction affirmed in prosecution for theft of microchip design file, (Dec 15, 2025)

By Kevin M. Finson, J.D.

A conviction for theft of trade secrets in the form of a design file for a microchip was affirmed on appeal because there was sufficient evidence in the record for a reasonable jury to find each element of the offense and because the defendant did not produce sufficient evidence to prove he was targeted based on his race or ethnicity.

An individual convicted of stealing microchip design secrets failed to show any basis to reverse his conviction, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit has held. The evidence was sufficient as to each element of the offense, and the defendant failed to show he was investigated or prosecuted due to his Chinese ethnicity (U.S. v. Yu, Nos. 23-1585, 24-1325, (1st Cir. Dec. 11, 2025)).

Haoyang Yu was employed by Analog Devices, Inc. (ADI) and was alleged to have downloaded ADI’s proprietary information, including the design of a microchip, and to have begun selling microchips similar to ADI’s after leaving the company and starting his own microchip design firm. Yu was indicted on a number of charges, including possession of stolen trade secrets, wire fraud, illegal export of controlled technology, and immigration matters. After a jury trial, he was ultimately convicted of only the first count, unlawful possession of a trade secret under 18 U.S.C. § 1832(a)(3). Yu appealed, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence and alleging unconstitutional selective enforcement.

Sufficiency of evidence. The sole count on which Yu was convicted alleged unlawful possession of "[t]he design layout and GDS for the HMC1022A microchip."

Yu argued that he never possessed the final design of that microchip, but only an earlier prototype version. The court found that the indictment, read as a whole in a plain and commonsense manner, clearly gave notice of which file Yu was alleged to have possessed.

Yu also argued that the design file no longer amounted to a trade secret at the time he was alleged to have possessed it because the microchip had been released to the public at that time and could be easily and quickly reverse-engineered. The court noted that the prosecution had presented extensive evidence showing that reverse-engineering a design from a physical microchip was both time and labor intensive, and that this showed the design, or the translation of the design from a prior company, possessed economic value.

Finally, Yu argued that the prosecution had failed to show he had actual knowledge the file in question was a trade secret. Without deciding whether knowledge was an element of the offense, the court found that extensive evidence of Yu’s attempts to keep his activities concealed was sufficient for a jury to find he had knowledge that the file was a trade secret.

Selective enforcement and prosecution. Yu argued that he was targeted for prosecution because of his Chinese ethnicity, and that non-Chinese people faced civil suits but not criminal prosecution for similar thefts of trade secrets, including specifically from ADI. The court found no error in the trial court’s conclusion that the offenders identified by Yu were not similarly situated. While they also stole trade secrets, he was the only one who was alleged to have violated export controls with those same secrets.

The court affirmed the conviction.

The case is Nos. 23-1585, 24-1325.

Judge: Montecalvo, L.

Attorneys: Karen Lisa Eisenstadt, U.S. Attorney Office, for the U.S. William W. Fick (Fick & Marx LLP) for Haoyang Yu.

Cases: TradeSecrets TechnologyInternet MaineNews MassachusettsNews NewHampshireNews PuertoRicoNews RhodeIslandNews