Former Google engineer challenges claims of stealing AI trade secrets

SAN FRANCISCO (CN) — In closing arguments Wednesday, a former Google software engineer insisted he didn’t steal proprietary information on Google’s artificial intelligence technology and didn’t secretly transfer it to tech companies in China.

Attorney Grant Fondo of Goodwin Procter, told the jury the government — which is charging Linwei Ding with seven counts of theft of trade secrets and seven counts of economic espionage, each corresponding to one of the seven categories of trade secrets — “was not upfront with you.”

“The government spent days and days of this trial talking about Google’s technology, AI supercomputers, and data centers that they spent billions developing. What they didn’t focus on is the core of this case,” he said. “What did he do, and more importantly, what did he not do? The government did not address that because it is problematic for them.”

Fondo said there was no evidence Ding transferred, sold or used trade secrets to build a product, and questioned the value of the documents.

The federal government claims Ding began transferring files in May 2022, copying information from internal Google documents to the notes application on his company-issued laptop, converting the notes to PDFs and uploading them to a personal cloud account.

In total, they say Ding transferred 1,255 documents, comprising an estimated 14,000 pages, between May 2022 and May 2023. The case focuses on 105 documents that the government says contain Google trade secrets related to the company’s supercomputing data centers.

The government also claims Ding worked for two China-based technology companies during his tenure at Google, taking on the role of chief technology officer for the Beijing-based company, Rongshu, in November 2022, and founding his own technology company, Zhisuan Technology, the following spring.

“Ask yourself, if Linwei had these trade secrets with the intent to use them, and they were out fundraising with investors and none of the investors invested in them, if these trade secrets were so incredibly valuable, it tells you he never used them, never transferred them,” Fondo said.

Fondo added that the documents could not have contained trade secrets, because Google did not do enough to protect the information, including inconsistent labeling and sharing documents widely with hundreds of thousands of employees.

“Google chose openness over security; they did not take reasonable measures,” he said.

Molly Priedeman, an attorney for the Department of Justice, told the jury that Ding “wanted more for himself than his own knowledge could give him, so he stole, cheated and lied.”

Priedeman insisted that Ding purposefully spent hours removing confidentiality markings when copying information to his notes and organizing the notes into specific folders on his personal Google Drive that corresponded to different parts of Google’s business.

“Why would he go through so much effort if the information was not valuable and he did not intend to use it? He wouldn’t,” she said.

Priedeman said that Ding used the purported trade secret information to give himself a leg up when applying for jobs in China, as well as advancing the Chinese companies he became affiliated with. He lied to investors about his experience and role at Google as well as what his own technology company could achieve, she claimed.

“Why did the defendant feel so confident saying this if it was not true? At this point, he was already stealing Google trade secret information,” Priedeman said. “After getting rejections using a resume with his real experience, he chose a different strategy. Lie about his experience, and he had trade secrets to deliver on promises.”

The government additionally claimed that Ding intended to target government agencies with his technology company Zhisuan, citing a list of multiple government entities, including a government-controlled AI technology zone, on a presentation Ding made to investors.

“This is not about spying, it’s very direct and simple economic espionage,” Casey Boome, an attorney with the Department of Justice, said, adding that he offered the services of his company, “he could only do with the trade secret documents.”

Fondo denied that Ding had any intention of benefiting China with the information he possessed and that his company, Zhisuan, “was not and could not compete with Google.”

“When you look at all that evidence and go back to the jury room, there is a lot of direct evidence that Linwei did not do it, a lot of gaps,” he said. “The government will ask you to speculate, say ‘he was going to do it, but he never did it.’ Consider all that evidence and consider all the things the government did not show you. The only verdict is not guilty.”

In rebuttal, Boome said the government did not need to prove that Ding actually used or transferred the trade secrets to anyone, but rather, just that he intended to do so.

“Why did Mr. Fondo spend so much time talking about things that don’t matter? If he talked about the question that matters, what the defendant intended to do, there is no way to find a way around guilty on every single count,” he said, adding that it made sense that Ding did not sell or transfer the documents because they made him valuable.

“He used the documents to close the gap between what he told investors and what was true. If he gave or sold these documents, he would not be valuable,” Boome said.

If convicted, Ding faces a maximum of 10 years in prison and up to $250,000 in fines for each trade-secret count, in addition to 15 years in prison and a $5 million fine for each economic espionage count, according to the Department of Justice.

Representatives for either party did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria, a Barack Obama appointee, presided over the trial.

Follow @mhattridge_