U.S. Code » Title 18 » Part PART I— CRIMES › Chapter CHAPTER 90— PROTECTION OF TRADE SECRETS

18 U.S.C. § 1835

Orders to preserve confidentiality

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 18 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a)In General.—In any prosecution or other proceeding under this chapter, the court shall enter such orders and take such other action as may be necessary and appropriate to preserve the confidentiality of trade secrets, consistent with the requirements of the Federal Rules of Criminal and Civil Procedure, the Federal Rules of Evidence, and all other applicable laws. An interlocutory appeal by the United States shall lie from a decision or order of a district court authorizing or directing the disclosure of any trade secret.(b)Rights of Trade Secret Owners.—The court may not authorize or direct the disclosure of any information the owner asserts to be a trade secret unless the court allows the owner the opportunity to file a submission under seal that describes the interest of the owner in keeping the information confidential. No submission under seal made under this subsection may be used in a prosecution under this chapter for any purpose other than those set forth in this section, or otherwise required by law. The provision of information relating to a trade secret to the United States or the court in connection with a prosecution under this chapter shall not constitute a waiver of trade secret protection, and the disclosure of information relating to a trade secret in connection with a prosecution under this chapter shall not constitute a waiver of trade secret protection unless the trade secret owner expressly consents to such waiver.(Added Pub. L. 104–294, title I, § 101(a), Oct. 11, 1996, 110 Stat. 3490; amended Pub. L. 114–153, § 3(a)(2), May 11, 2016, 130 Stat. 382.)Editorial NotesReferences in Text

The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, referred to in subsec. (a), are set out in the Appendix to this title.

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, referred to in subsec. (a), are set out in the Appendix to Title 28, Judiciary and Judicial Procedure.

The Federal Rules of Evidence, referred to in subsec. (a), are set out in the Appendix to Title 28.

Amendments

2016—Pub. L. 114–153 designated existing provisions as subsec. (a), inserted heading, and added subsec. (b).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16 cases (11 in the last 5 years), 1997–2025 · leading case: United States v. Fei Ye, 436 F.3d 1117 (9th Cir. 2006).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
United States v. Fei Ye, 436 F.3d 1117 (9th Cir. 2006). · cites it 7× “The government brings this interlocutory appeal under 18 U.S.C. § 1835 , arguing that the district court erred in granting the motion because the order authorizes and directs the disclosure of trade secrets, and because it is inconsistent with the Federal Rules of Criminal…”
United States v. Kai-Lo Hsu, A/K/A James Hsu. United States of Am. v. Chester S. Ho. United States of Am., 155 F.3d 189 (3d Cir. 1998). · cites it 3× “However, on August 12, 1997, the government filed a motion pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1835 and Fed.R.Crim.P. 16(d)(1) for a protective order to prevent the disclosure of the Bristol-Myers trade secrets allegedly contained in those documents.”
United States v. Kai-Lo Hsu, 982 F. Supp. 1022 (E.D. Pa. 1997). · cites it 6× “The Government now seeks a protective order pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1835 2 and Fed.R.Crim.P. 16(d)(1) to prevent the defendants from reviewing Bristol-Myers’s Taxol technology documents because the Government contends that many of the documents contain confidential trade secrets.”
United States v. Ye, No. 05-10073 (9th Cir. Feb. 1, 2006). · cites it 7× “The government brings this interlocutory appeal under 18 U.S.C. § 1835 , arguing that the district court erred in granting the UNITED STATES v.”
BP Am. Prod. Co. v. Hamer, No. 1:19-cv-03581 (D. Colo. Dec. 23, 2019). · cites it 3× “” 18 U.S.C. § 1835 (a). The DTSA further indicates that courts “may not authorize or direct the disclosure of any information the owner asserts to be a trade secret unless the court allows the owner the opportunity to file a submission under seal that describes the interest of…”
Janssen Prods. LP v. Evenus Pharm. Labs. Inc, 85 F.4th 147 (3d Cir. 2023). “” 18 U.S.C. § 1835 (a). Congress’s express grant of appellate jurisdiction over certain interlocutory appeals in the same statutory scheme supports our conclusion that Congress did not intend to confer jurisdiction over DTSA ex parte seizure rulings.”
Ellis v. Gov't Emp. Ins. Co., No. 2:22-cv-01580 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 25, 2024). “) See 18 U.S.C. § 1835 ; Cal. 22 Civ. Code § 3426.”
Aircraft Gear Corp. v. Lentsch, No. 3:18-cv-50244 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 6, 2023). “Defendants’ motion [165] for summary judgment is granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiff has abandoned its claims under the state law tort theories set forth in Counts V, VI, VII, and VIII and summary judgment is granted in defendants’ favor on plaintiff’s claims under…”
Assessment Tech. Inst., L.L.C. v. Parkes, No. 2:19-cv-02514 (D. Kan. Feb. 24, 2022). “did not disclose specific test items in her videos; she merely discussed general nursing topics that happened to cover some of the same topics tested on Plaintiff’s exams.”
Centurum Info. Tech., Inc. v. Geocent, LLC, No. 2:21-cv-00082 (E.D. La. Feb. 12, 2021). “” 18 U.S.C. § 1835 (a). i. Centurum Employee Information In December 2020, Mr.”
Kumaran v. ADM Inv. Servs., Inc., No. 1:20-cv-03873 (S.D.N.Y. May 25, 2021). “Therefore consistent with 18 U.S.C. §§ 1835 (b)(a) once a party (plaintiffs) asserts information is trade secret the Court must permit the parties to file the information under seal until Plaintiffs have been afforded the ability to redact.”
BlueLinx Corp. v. Edwards, No. 3:23-cv-02503 (N.D. Tex. June 24, 2024). “62 (citing 18 U.S.C. § 1835 (b)(1); and CTCOA, LLC v.”
Show all 16 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.