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

18 U.S.C. § 1837

Applicability to conduct outside the United States

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 18 CasesGoogle Scholar
This chapter also applies to conduct occurring outside the United States if—(1) the offender is a natural person who is a citizen or permanent resident alien of the United States, or an organization organized under the laws of the United States or a State or political subdivision thereof; or(2) an act in furtherance of the offense was committed in the United States.(Added Pub. L. 104–294, title I, § 101(a), Oct. 11, 1996, 110 Stat. 3490.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 32 cases (24 in the last 5 years), 2011–2025 · leading case: Motorola Solutions, Inc. v. Hytera Commc'ns Corp. Ltd., 108 F.4th 458 (7th Cir. 2024).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Motorola Solutions, Inc. v. Hytera Commc'ns Corp. Ltd., 108 F.4th 458 (7th Cir. 2024). · cites it 4× “” 18 U.S.C. § 1837 (2). The dis- trict court wrote that section 1837 expressly rebutted the pre- sumption against extraterritoriality, but that a question re- mained as to whether, as Hytera argues, “Section 1837 limits that rebuttal only to criminal matters.”
Dmarcian, Inc. v. Dmarcian Eur. BV, 60 F.4th 119 (4th Cir. 2023). · cites it 2× “18 U.S.C. § 1837 (2). The district court noted the “relatively low bar” for this requirement: “courts place less import on the scope of the actions committed within the United States than the tie between those actions and the misappropriation.”
Amyndas Pharm., S.A. v. Zealand Pharma A/S, 48 F.4th 18 (1st Cir. 2022). “See 18 U.S.C. § 1837 (providing for extraterritorial applicability under certain circumstances); see, e.”
TianRui Grp. Co. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 661 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2011). · cites it 4× “2d 619 (2005) ("the wire fraud statute punishes frauds executed `in interstate or foreign commerce'" (emphasis added)); Economic Espionage Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1837 (explicitly stating it "also applies to conduct occurring outside the United States"); United States v.”
United States v. Kolon Indus., Inc., 926 F. Supp. 2d 794 (E.D. Va. 2013). “” 18 U.S.C. § 1837 (2). Further, the trade secret statute and the obstruction of justice statute each clearly contemplates applicability of the statute to an organizational defendant.”
vPersonalize Inc v. Magnetize Consultants Ltd (W.D. Wash. 2020). · cites it 5× “23 24 1 First, 18 U.S.C. §1837 provides “This chapter,” which includes the civil enforcement 2 provision of § 1836, “also applies to conduct occurring outside the United States if .”
Motorola Solutions, Inc. v. Hytera Commc'ns Corp. Ltd. (7th Cir. 2024). · cites it 4× “” 18 U.S.C. § 1837 (2). The dis- trict court wrote that section 1837 expressly rebutted the pre- sumption against extraterritoriality, but that a question re- mained as to whether, as Hytera argues, “Section 1837 limits that rebuttal only to criminal matters.”
Dmarcian, Inc. v. Dmarcian Eur. BV (4th Cir. 2023). · cites it 2× “18 U.S.C. § 1837 (2). The district court noted the “relatively low bar” for this requirement: “courts place less import on the scope of the actions committed within the United States than the tie between those actions and the misappropriation.”
Dmarcian, Inc. v. Dmarcian Eur. BV (4th Cir. 2023). · cites it 2× “18 U.S.C. § 1837 (2). The district court noted the “relatively low bar” for this requirement: “courts place less import on the scope of the actions committed within the United States than the tie between those actions and the misappropriation.”
Inventus Power, Inc. v. Shenzhen Ace Battery Co., Ltd. (N.D. Ill. 2020). · cites it 2× “” 18 U.S.C. § 1837 ; see also vPersonalize Inc.”
Jordan Miller & Assocs., Inc. v. Shlomi (N.D. Ill. 2021). · cites it 2× “Plaintiff’s claims are: (1) breach of contract, (2) misappropriation of trade secrets under 18 U.S.C. § 1837 (b), (3) misappropriation of trade secrets under 765 ILCS 1065/1 et seq.”
Sysco Mach. Corp. v. Cymtek Solutions, Inc. (D. Mass. 2022). · cites it 2× “” 18 U.S.C. § 1837 (2). Nonetheless, Sysco claims that selling or distributing machines in the United States made outside the United States from its allegedly stolen trade secrets is “use” of the trade secret.”
Show all 32 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.