ILNews

Lilly scientists stole $55M in secrets, indictment alleges

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Three former employees of Eli Lilly and Co. allegedly transferred trade secrets that Lilly values at more than $55 million to a competing Chinese drug company, according to an indictment unsealed Tuesday in federal court.

The indictment charges two Carmel residents, Guoqing Cao and Shuyu Li, with seven counts of theft and conspiracy to commit theft. It also describes the actions of a third man, referred to only as Individual #1, who also played a part in the alleged crime.

According to the indictment, Cao and Li, both of whom are scientists with doctoral degrees, e-mailed sensitive information about nine experimental drug research programs at Lilly to Individual #1, who is employed by Jiangsu Hengrui Medicine Co. Ltd., based in China.

U.S. Attorney Joe Hogsett and his deputy, Cynthia Ridgeway, characterized the alleged theft as a crime against the nation.

“If the superseding indictment in this case could be wrapped up in one word, that word would be ‘traitor,’” Ridgeway argued before Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore on Tuesday.

“Stolen trade secrets account for billions of losses for American companies throughout our nation,” Hogsett told reporters outside the federal courthouse downtown.

Cao and Li were arrested Oct. 1 in Indianapolis and appeared Tuesday in U.S. District Court in Indianapolis—handcuffed and dressed in striped jail uniforms.

The U.S. Attorney’s Office in Indianapolis sought a judge’s order to continue detaining the two men, arguing that they were flight risks and a “financial danger” to Lilly.

Bill Heath, the head of global product development for Indianapolis-based Lilly, testified at the hearing that the men’s knowledge could help Hengrui duplicate Lilly’s research. Those trade secrets involve drugs being developed to treat cardiovascular disease, diabetes and cancer.

“Because of their know-how and their continued access to the information, they would be in a position to direct others how to use the information,” Heath said.

Attorneys for each of the men argued that they should be let go, and that they would surrender their passports while the case against them proceded.

Scott Newman, a former Marion County prosecutor who is representing Li, said the U.S. Attorney’s office had failed to prove its case that the two men needed to be detained further.

“No, the word is not treason; the word is overreach,” Newman said.

Dinsmore eventually ruled that the two men would remain in custody until trial.

Lilly assisted the FBI and the U.S. Attorney’s office in the investigation of Cao, Li and Individual #1. Individual #1 is still under investigation, according to FBI agents, and has not been arrested.

In a statement, Lilly General Counsel Michael Harrington said the trade secrets allegedly stolen all involve early-stage research, and so their alleged theft does “not significantly jeopardize our overall research and development pipeline.”

“Lilly will aggressively pursue every legal remedy to protect and safeguard its scientific discoveries,” Harrington added. “This includes assisting law enforcement in prosecuting and holding accountable those attempting to steal Lilly’s valuable research.”
 
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Hail to our Constitutional Law Expert in the Executive Office! “What you’re not paying attention to is the fact that I just took an action to change the law,” Obama said.

  2. What is this, the Ind Supreme Court thinking that there is a separation of powers and limited enumerated powers as delegated by a dusty old document? Such eighteen century thinking, so rare and unwanted by the elites in this modern age. Dictate to us, dictate over us, the massess are chanting! George Soros agrees. Time to change with times Ind Supreme Court, says all President Snows. Rule by executive decree is the new black.

  3. I made the same argument before a commission of the Indiana Supreme Court and then to the fedeal district and federal appellate courts. Fell flat. So very glad to read that some judges still beleive that evidentiary foundations matter.

  4. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  5. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

ADVERTISEMENT