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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  2. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  3. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  4. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  5. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

ADVERTISEMENT