A federal judge rejected an acquittal motion filed by Linwei "Leon" Ding, the former Google engineer convicted of stealing trade secrets related to the company's artificial intelligence technology. The defense sought dismissal on economic espionage charges under the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA), arguing insufficient evidence supported the conviction.
The judge declined to overturn the jury verdict, though he indicated a separate written ruling would address the specific economic espionage counts. Ding faced prosecution after prosecutors alleged he downloaded confidential files concerning Google's AI infrastructure before joining a Chinese competitor. Federal authorities accused him of violating both the DTSA and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA).
The denial of Ding's acquittal motion represents a significant development in the intersection of trade secret protection and international corporate espionage. Courts rarely grant such motions after conviction, requiring that the government present sufficient evidence that a reasonable jury could convict. By denying the motion, the judge determined the evidence met this threshold across multiple statutory violations.
This case reflects growing tensions between technology companies and foreign competitors over proprietary information. The DTSA, enacted in 2016, provides a federal civil cause of action and criminal penalties for trade secret theft. Economic espionage charges carry particularly severe consequences, carrying sentences up to 10 years imprisonment plus fines.
The outcome carries implications for other tech workers and similar prosecutions involving AI technology transfers. Employers increasingly rely on trade secret protections as competition intensifies for artificial intelligence talent and methodologies. The conviction signals that courts will enforce these protections vigorously.
Ding faces sentencing following the denial of his acquittal motion. The separate ruling on economic espionage counts could alter sentencing calculations, as those counts carry mandatory minimums and enhanced penalties. The case underscores how federal courts balance national security concerns with intellectual property rights in