[House Report 114-529]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


114th Congress   }                                      {       Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session      }                                      {      114-529

======================================================================



 
                    DEFEND TRADE SECRETS ACT OF 2016

                                _______
                                

 April 26, 2016.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

   Mr. Goodlatte, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the 
                               following

                              R E P O R T

                         [To accompany S. 1890]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

    The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the 
bill (S. 1890) to amend chapter 90 of title 18, United States 
Code, to provide Federal jurisdiction for the theft of trade 
secrets, and for other purposes, having considered the same, 
reports favorably thereon without amendment and recommends that 
the bill do pass.

                                CONTENTS

                                                                   Page

Purpose and Summary..............................................     1
Background and Need for the Legislation..........................     2
Hearings.........................................................     6
Committee Consideration..........................................     6
Committee Votes..................................................     6
Committee Oversight Findings.....................................     6
New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures........................     7
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate........................     7
Duplication of Federal Programs..................................     8
Disclosure of Directed Rule Makings..............................     9
Performance Goals and Objectives.................................     9
Advisory on Earmarks.............................................     9
Section-by-Section Analysis......................................     9
Agency Views.....................................................    17
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............    18

                          Purpose and Summary

    S. 1890 amends the Economic Espionage Act of 1996 to 
provide a Federal civil remedy for the misappropriation of 
trade secrets, allowing trade secret owners to protect their 
innovations by seeking redress in Federal court, just as owners 
of other forms of intellectual property, including copyrights, 
patents, and trademarks, can seek remedies in Federal court for 
violations of their rights. The bill provides for equitable 
remedies and the award of damages for the misappropriation of a 
trade secret, and models its definition of ``misappropriation'' 
on the Uniform Trade Secrets Act. It also provides for 
expedited relief on an ex parte basis in the form of seizure of 
property from the party accused of misappropriation only if 
necessary to preserve evidence or prevent the dissemination of 
a trade secret. Any ex parte seizure order issued by a court 
must minimize any interruption to the business operations of 
third parties, protect the property seized from disclosure, and 
set a hearing date at the earliest possible time. The bill also 
provides sanctions for an erroneous seizure.

                Background and Need for the Legislation

    Trade secrets, under U.S. law, consist of three parts: (1) 
information that is non-public; (2) the reasonable measures 
taken to protect that information; and (3) the fact that the 
information derives independent economic value from not being 
publicly known. This confidential business information can be 
protected for an unlimited time, unlike patents, and requires 
no formal registration process. But unlike patents, once this 
information is disclosed it instantly loses its value and the 
property right itself ceases to exist.
    So there is a definite trade-off between securing patent 
protection or keeping an innovation as a trade secret. By 
seeking patent protection, an inventor agrees to disclose to 
the world their invention and how it works, furthering 
innovation and research. They also secure a 20 year exclusive 
term of protection, and the right to prevent others from 
making, using, selling, importing, or distributing a patented 
invention without permission. By maintaining it as a trade 
secret, an inventor could theoretically keep their invention 
secret indefinitely (ex: formula for Coca-Cola;\1\ the KFC 
Colonel's Secret Recipe\2\). But the downside is there is no 
protection if the trade secret is uncovered by others through 
reverse engineering or independent development.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\http://www.coca-colacompany.com/press-center/press-releases/
coca-cola-moves-its-secret-
formula-to-the-world-of-coca-cola/--``It hasn't been moved in 86 years, 
but today the secret is out--The Coca-Cola Company has moved the 125-
year-old secret formula for Coca-Cola to a new home at the World of 
Coca-Cola in Atlanta.''
    \2\https://www.kfc.com/menu/chicken/original-recipe--``Still 
freshly prepared in every restaurant, the Colonel's Original Recipe 
chicken is seasoned with our secret blend of 11 herbs & spices and then 
hand breaded all day long by a certified cook.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Trade secrets are the commercially valuable designs, 
processes, techniques and other forms of information kept 
confidential by companies because, by virtue of their secrecy, 
they give companies an edge in a competitive marketplace. Often 
developed at great cost and through years of research and 
development. In a global economy based on knowledge and 
innovation, trade secrets constitute some of any company's most 
valuable property.
    Examples of trade secrets include confidential formulas, 
manufacturing techniques, and customer lists. Trade secret law 
offers protection from trade secret ``misappropriation,'' which 
is the unauthorized acquisition, use, or disclosure of such 
secrets obtained by some improper means. But discovery of a 
trade secret by fair, lawful methods, such as reverse 
engineering or independent development, is permitted.
    Though states are allowed to develop their own trade 
secrets laws, most states have adopted the Uniform Trade 
Secrets Act (UTSA) as the basis for their trade secret laws. 
The Federal Government currently protects trade secrets through 
both the criminal and public civil enforcement sections of the 
Economic Espionage Act of 1996 (``EEA''), which is codified in 
18 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 1831-39. Under section 1831, which deals 
with economic espionage, it is a felony to knowingly steal or 
misappropriate a trade secret to ``benefit any foreign 
government, foreign instrumentality, or foreign agent.'' 
Section 1832 addresses the theft of trade secrets ``related to 
or included in a product that is produced or placed in 
interstate or foreign commerce.'' It makes it a crime to 
knowingly steal or misappropriate a trade secret ``to the 
economic benefit of anyone other than the owner thereof'' if 
the accused party ``intend[s] or know[s] that the offense will 
. . . injure any owner of that trade secret.''
    The trade secrets of American companies are increasingly at 
risk for misappropriation by thieves looking for a quick payday 
or to replicate the market-leading innovations developed by 
trade secret owners. Using ever-more sophisticated means of 
attack, these thieves aim to steal the know-how that has made 
American industry the envy of the world. The Commission on the 
Theft of American Intellectual Property found that the illegal 
theft of intellectual property is undermining the means and 
incentive for entrepreneurs to innovate, slowing the 
development of new inventions and industries that could raise 
the prosperity and quality of life for everyone.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\Report of the Commission of the Theft of American Intellectual 
Property, at 1, 10 (May 2013), available at http://
www.ipcommission.org/report/IP_Commission_Report_052213.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The threat is significant: Trade secrets are an integral 
part of a company's competitive advantage in today's economy, 
and with the increased digitization of critical data and 
increased global trade, this information is highly susceptible 
to theft.\4\ The United States Department of Defense has found 
that every year, ``an amount of intellectual property larger 
than that contained in the Library of Congress is stolen from 
networks maintained by U.S. businesses, universities, and 
government departments and agencies.''\5\ General Keith 
Alexander, former head of the National Security Agency and U.S. 
Cyber Command, estimated that U.S. companies lose $250 billion 
per year due to the theft of their intellectual property.\6\ 
More recently, the Center for Responsible Enterprise and Trade, 
along with PwC, issued a report estimating that trade secret 
theft exacts a cost on U.S. companies of between one and 3 
percent of GDP annually, roughly a cost of between $160 and 
$480 million each year.\7\ And in the 112th Congress, this 
Committee recognized the ``significant and growing threat 
presented by criminals who engage in espionage on behalf of 
foreign adversaries and competitors.''\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\See Trade Secrets: Promoting and Protecting American Innovation, 
Competitiveness and Market Access in Foreign Markets: Hearing Before 
the Subcomm. on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet of the 
H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 113th Cong (2014), Statement of Richard 
Hertling, Of Counsel, Covington & Burling LLP, at *2; see also id, 
Statement of Chris Moore, Senior Director, International Business 
Policy, National Association of Manufacturers, at 2; Statement of David 
M. Simon, Senior Vice President for Intellectual Property, 
salesforce.com, Inc., at *2-3; Statement of Thaddeus Burns, Senior 
Counsel, Intellectual Property & Trade, General Electric, on behalf of 
Intellectual Property Owners Association, at *2. Because the record of 
the June 24, 2014 hearing has not been published as of the publication 
of this report, citations to the testimony in that record are to the 
material submitted, rather than to the pages of the GPO print, and are 
identified by asterisks.
    \5\Dep't of Defense, Strategy for Operating in Cyberspace, at 4 
(July 2011), available at http://www.defense.gov/news/
d20110714cyber.pdf.
    \6\Josh Rogin, NSA Chief: Cybercrime Constitutes the ``Greatest 
Transfer of Wealth in History,'' The Cable, July 9, 2012, available at 
http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/07/09/
nsa_chief_cybercrime_constitutes_the_greatest_transfer_of_wealth_in_hist
ory.
    \7\Center for Responsible Enterprise and Trade & PwC, Economic 
Impact of Trade Secret Theft: a Framework for Companies to Safeguard 
Trade Secrets and Mitigate Potential Threats, at 7-9 (February 2014), 
available at https://create.org/wp-content/uploads/2-14/07/CREATe.org-
PwC-Trade-Secret-Theft-FINAL-Feb-2014_01.pdf.
    \8\H.R. Rep. No. 112-610, Foreign and Economic Espionage Penalty 
Enhancement Act of 2012, at 1 (2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Companies have taken a number of measures to combat this 
threat, including strengthening their cybersecurity measures, 
encrypting key documents, examining their supply chains for 
weak points, employing strong contractual protections to 
safeguard their trade secrets in business relationships, and 
increasing the physical security of their plants and offices. 
When thefts do occur, companies turn to either state civil 
laws, which vary by jurisdiction, or the Federal Economic 
Espionage Act (``EEA'').\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\Economic Espionage Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-294, 110 Stat. 
3488 (1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The EEA, enacted in 1996 and codified at 18 U.S.C. 
Sec. Sec. 1831 et seq., makes it a Federal criminal offense to 
misappropriate a trade secret that has an interstate or foreign 
nexus. This Committee's Report on the EEA found that trade 
secrets form ``an integral part of America's economic well-
being.''\10\ As the first Federal statute to protect trade 
secrets, the EEA has enabled the FBI to investigate cases of 
trade secret theft, including, for example, the case of a 
former engineer at Ford Motor Co. who stole 4,000 documents and 
went to work at a competitor, causing losses to Ford estimated 
at $50 million. However, the FBI does not have the resources to 
investigate every case of trade secret theft. And the EEA, as a 
criminal statute, is not suited to making whole the victims of 
misappropriation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\H.R. Rep. No. 104-788, Economic Espionage Act of 1996, at 4 
(1996)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Companies facing a trade secret theft also turn to state 
trade secret laws, many of them based on the Uniform Trade 
Secrets Act (``UTSA''). While 48 states have adopted variations 
of the UTSA, the state laws vary in a number of ways and 
contain built-in limitations that make them not wholly 
effective in a national and global economy. First, they require 
companies to tailor costly compliance plans to meet each 
individual state's law. Second, trade secret theft today is 
often not confined to a single state. The theft increasingly 
involves the movement of secrets across state lines, making it 
difficult for state courts to efficiently order discovery and 
service of process. Finally, trade secret cases often require 
swift action by courts across state lines to preserve evidence 
and keep a trade secret thief from boarding a plane and taking 
the secret beyond the reach of American law. In a globalized 
and national economy, Federal courts are better situated to 
address these concerns.
    In the 112th Congress the Judiciary Committee helped enact 
two pieces of legislation to improve the protection of trade 
secrets.

         LPublic Law 112-236--The Theft of Trade 
        Secrets Clarification Act of 2012 (S. 3642), closed a 
        loophole in the Economic Espionage Act that had allowed 
        the theft of valuable trade secret source code.\10\ 
        This legislation was introduced in response to the 
        Second Circuit decision in United States v. Aleynikov, 
        676 F.3d 71 (2d Cir. 2012), which overturned a verdict 
        that found that the defendant violated 18 U.S.C. 
        Sec. 1832(a) by stealing proprietary computer code, a 
        trade secret, from his employer.

         LPublic Law 112-269--The Foreign and Economic 
        Espionage Penalty Enhancement Act of 2012 (H.R. 6029/S. 
        678), bolstered criminal penalties for economic 
        espionage and directed the Sentencing Commission to 
        consider increasing offense levels for trade secret 
        crimes. Its passage is an important step in ensuring 
        that penalties are commensurate with the economic harm 
        inflicted on trade secret owners.

    In the 113th Congress, multiple bills were introduced in 
the House and Senate pertaining to trade secret 
misappropriation. The 114th Congress has seen the 
reintroduction and Senate-passage of S. 1890, the Defend Trade 
Secrets Act.
    In 2014, a House bill (H.R.5233, the ``Trade Secrets 
Protection Act'') introduced by Rep. Holding and Rep. Nadler 
and 16 other cosponsors, 13 of whom were Judiciary Committee 
members, amended the Economic Espionage Act of 1996 to create a 
Federal civil remedy for trade secret misappropriation. That 
bill passed out of committee on September 10, 2014. In 2015, 
the House introduced a bill (H.R. 3326, the ``Defend Trade 
Secrets Act of 2015'') similar to the one that previously 
passed out of Committee. The Senate introduced a companion 
bill, the ``Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2015'' (S. 1890), which 
the Senate Judiciary Committee considered on January 28, 2016. 
The Senate passed this bill by a vote of 87-0 on April 4, 2016. 
The House Judiciary Committee marked up and passed the Senate-
passed bill, S. 1890, on April 20, 2016.
    The Act's definition of misappropriation is modeled on the 
Uniform Trade Secrets Act, versions of which have been adopted 
by 48 states. The Act does not pre-empt these state laws and 
offers a complementary Federal remedy if the jurisdictional 
threshold for Federal jurisdiction is satisfied. The Act 
defines misappropriation as acquisition of a trade secret by 
improper means, disclosure or use of a trade secret by a person 
who had reason to know that the trade secret was acquired by 
improper means or under circumstances giving rise to a duty of 
secrecy, or disclosure or use of a trade secret by a person who 
had reason to know it was disclosed by accident or mistake.
    The Act also provides for equitable remedies and the award 
of damages, and for double damages for a willful and malicious 
misappropriation, and has a 3-year statute of limitations.
    The Act also provides for the ex parte seizure of property 
from the party accused of misappropriation if necessary to 
preserve evidence or prevent the dissemination of a trade 
secret. The applicant for the seizure order must show it is 
likely to succeed in showing that the party receiving the order 
misappropriated the trade secret and would not comply with an 
injunction, that irreparable injury would occur in the absence 
of a seizure, and that the harm to the applicant outweighs the 
legitimate interests of the party receiving the order. The 
order must minimize any interruption to the business operations 
of third parties, protect the seized property from disclosure, 
and set a hearing date at the earliest possible time and not 
later than 7 days after the order has issued.
    America's strength has always been found in the innovation 
and ingenuity of its people--its inventors, creators, 
engineers, designers, developers, and doers. American 
businesses that compete globally will lose their competitive 
edge if they cannot quickly pursue and stop thieves looking to 
shortcut the innovative products, designs, and processes that 
have fueled our economy. This bill will equip companies with 
the additional tools they need to protect their proprietary 
information, to preserve and increase jobs and promote growth 
in the United States, and to continue to lead the world in 
creating new and innovative products, technologies, and 
services.
    The Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 (S. 1890) offers a 
needed update to Federal law to provide a Federal civil remedy 
for trade secret misappropriation. Carefully balanced to ensure 
an effective and efficient remedy for trade secret owners whose 
intellectual property has been stolen, the legislation is 
designed to avoid disruption of legitimate businesses, without 
preempting State law. This narrowly drawn legislation will 
provide a single, national standard for trade secret 
misappropriation with clear rules and predictability for 
everyone involved. Victims will be able to move quickly to 
Federal court, with certainty of the rules, standards, and 
practices to stop trade secrets from winding up being 
disseminated and losing their value. As trade secret owners 
increasingly face threats from both at home and abroad, the 
bill equips them with the tools they need to effectively 
protect their intellectual property and ensures continued 
growth and innovation in the American economy.

                                Hearings

    The Committee on the Judiciary did not hold a legislative 
hearing on S. 1890. The Committee held an oversight hearing on 
``Trade Secrets: Promoting and Protecting American Innovation, 
Competitiveness and Market Access in Foreign Markets'' on June 
24, 2014. The Committee heard testimony from Mr. Thaddeus 
Burns, Senior Counsel, Intellectual Property & Trade, General 
Electric; Mr. Richard A. Hertling, Of Counsel, Covington & 
Burling LLP, on behalf of the Protect Trade Secrets Coalition; 
Mr. Christopher Moore, Senior Director, International Business 
Policy, National Association of Manufacturers; and Mr. David 
Simon, Senior Vice President, Intellectual Property, 
Salesforce.com.

                        Committee Consideration

    On April 20, 2016, the Committee met in open session and 
ordered the bill S. 1890 favorably reported, without amendment, 
by voice vote, a quorum being present.

                            Committee Votes

    In compliance with clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, the Committee advises that there 
were no recorded votes during the Committee's consideration of 
S. 1890.

                      Committee Oversight Findings

    In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules 
of the House of Representatives, the Committee advises that the 
findings and recommendations of the Committee, based on 
oversight activities under clause 2(b)(1) of rule X of the 
Rules of the House of Representatives, are incorporated in the 
descriptive portions of this report.

               New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures

    Clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives is inapplicable because this legislation does 
not provide new budgetary authority or increased tax 
expenditures.

               Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate

    In compliance with clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules 
of the House of Representatives, the Committee sets forth, with 
respect to the bill, S. 1890, the following estimate and 
comparison prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget 
Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 
1974:

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                    Washington, DC, April 26, 2016.
Hon. Bob Goodlatte, Chairman,
Committee on the Judiciary,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for S. 1890, the ``Defend 
Trade Secrets Act of 2016.''
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Marin 
Burnett, who can be reached at 226-2860.
            Sincerely,
                                                Keith Hall,
                                                  Director.

Enclosure

cc:
        Honorable John Conyers, Jr.
        Ranking Member




               S. 1890--Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016.

      As ordered reported by the House Committee on the Judiciary 
                           on April 20, 2016.




    S. 1890 would establish a Federal remedy for individuals 
seeking relief from the misappropriation of trade secrets. 
Under the bill, an owner of a trade secret could file a civil 
action in a district court and the court could issue an order 
to seize any property necessary to preserve evidence for the 
civil action. The legislation would require information 
gathered or stored during a legal proceeding related to trade 
secrets to be secured to protect its confidentiality. The bill 
also would increase the fines that may be collected in the 
event of the theft of a trade secret. Finally, the legislation 
would require the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal 
Judicial Center to submit periodic reports concerning the theft 
of trade secrets in the United States.
    Based on information from DOJ and the Administrative Office 
of the U.S. Courts, CBO estimates that implementing S. 1890 
would have no significant effect on the Federal budget. Because 
enacting S. 1890 would affect direct spending and revenues, 
pay-as-you-go procedures apply. Specifically, the bill would 
affect the collection of fees for civil court filings and 
potentially increase certain fines, which are recorded in the 
budget as revenues. A portion of those revenues would be spent 
without further appropriation. On net, CBO estimates that the 
budgetary effect of those provisions would be negligible for 
each year and over the 2016-2026 period.
    CBO estimates that enacting S. 1890 would not increase net 
direct spending or on-budget deficits in any of the four 
consecutive 10-year periods beginning in 2027.
    S. 1890 would preempt State laws that govern matters of 
individual liability when trade secrets are disclosed to 
governmental officials during the course of an investigation or 
legal proceeding. That preemption would be a mandate as defined 
in the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act (UMRA) because it would 
limit the authority of States to apply their own laws. However, 
CBO estimates that the preemption would not affect the budgets 
of State, local, or tribal governments because it would impose 
no duty on States that would result in additional spending or 
loss of revenue.
    S. 1890 would impose a private-sector mandate as defined in 
UMRA by extending civil and criminal liability protection to 
individuals who disclose trade secrets to government 
authorities during the course of an investigation or legal 
proceeding. By providing such liability protection, the bill 
would prevent entities from seeking compensation for damages 
from those individuals under trade secret laws. The cost of the 
mandate would be the forgone value of judgements and 
compensation for damages for such disclosures that entities 
would be awarded under a trade secrets claim. The available 
literature suggests that few of those types of lawsuits have 
been brought against individuals under current law. 
Consequently, CBO estimates that the cost of the mandate would 
probably fall below the annual threshold established in UMRA 
for private-sector mandates ($154 million in 2016, adjusted 
annually for inflation).
    On February 25, 2016, CBO transmitted a cost estimate for 
S. 1890 as ordered reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee 
on January 28, 2016. The two versions of the legislation are 
identical and CBO's cost estimates are the same.
    The CBO staff contacts for this estimate are Marin Burnett 
(for Federal costs), Rachel Austin (for intergovernmental 
mandates), and Logan Smith (for private-sector mandates). The 
estimate was approved by Theresa A. Gullo, Assistant Director 
for Budget Analysis.

                    Duplication of Federal Programs

    No provision of S. 1890 establishes or reauthorizes a 
program of the Federal Government known to be duplicative of 
another Federal program, a program that was included in any 
report from the Government Accountability Office to Congress 
pursuant to section 21 of Public Law 111-139, or a program 
related to a program identified in the most recent Catalog of 
Federal Domestic Assistance.

                  Disclosure of Directed Rule Makings

    The Committee estimates that S. 1890 specifically directs 
to be completed no specific rule makings within the meaning of 
5 U.S.C. Sec. 551.

                    Performance Goals and Objectives

    The Committee states that pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of 
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, S. 1890 
will provide for civil jurisdiction in Federal court for the 
misappropriation of a trade secret, providing companies with an 
essential tool to prevent the disclosure of their valuable 
trade secrets and to obtain equitable remedies and damages in 
the event of trade secret theft.

                          Advisory on Earmarks

    In accordance with clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, S. 1890 does not contain any 
congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff 
benefits as defined in clause 9(e), 9(f), or 9(g) of Rule XXI.

                      Section-by-Section Analysis

Section 1. Short Title.
    Section 1 provides that the short title of S. 1890 is the 
``Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016.''
Sec. 2. Federal Jurisdiction for Theft of Trade Secrets.
    Section 2(a) amends Sec. 1836 of title 18 by striking 
subsection (b), which provides that the Federal district courts 
have exclusive jurisdiction over civil actions brought by the 
Attorney General for trade secret misappropriation. In its 
place, the new provision creates a Federal civil remedy for 
private parties for trade secret misappropriation.
In General.
    The new Sec. 1836(b) in paragraph (1) authorizes the owner 
of a trade secret that is misappropriated to bring a civil 
action in Federal court if the trade secret is related to a 
product or service used in, or intended for use in, interstate 
or foreign commerce. This jurisdictional nexus to interstate or 
foreign commerce is identical to the existing language required 
for Federal jurisdiction over the criminal theft of a trade 
secret under Sec. 1832(a).
Civil Seizure.
    The new Sec. 1836(b) authorizes a Federal court to issue an 
order, in extraordinary circumstances and upon an ex parte 
application based on an affidavit or verified complaint, to 
provide for seizure of property necessary to preserve evidence 
or to prevent the propagation or dissemination of the trade 
secret. Ex parte seizures will issue only when the 
prerequisites for the issuance of a seizure order are present. 
The issuance of a seizure order is limited to ``extraordinary 
circumstances.'' Subparagraph (A)(ii) lists requirements for 
issuing a seizure order. For example, this authority is not 
available if an injunction under existing rules of civil 
procedure would be sufficient. The ex parte seizure provision 
is expected to be used in instances in which a defendant is 
seeking to flee the country or planning to disclose the trade 
secret to a third party immediately or is otherwise not 
amenable to the enforcement of the court's orders.
    Subparagraph (A)(ii) contains numerous limitations, 
described below, and is not intended to affect the authority of 
the Federal courts to provide equitable relief and issue 
appropriate orders pursuant to Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of 
Civil Procedure, the All Writs Act (28 U.S.C. Sec. 1651), or 
any other authority, including the court's inherent authority.
    Subparagraph (A)(ii) of Sec. 1836(b) specifies that that a 
court may not grant a seizure order unless it finds that it 
clearly appears from specific facts that (1) a temporary 
restraining order issued pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 
Procedure 65(b) would be inadequate because the party to which 
the order would be issued would evade, avoid, or otherwise not 
comply with it; (2) immediate and irreparable injury will occur 
if the seizure is not ordered; (3) the harm to the applicant of 
denying the application outweighs the harm to the legitimate 
interests of the person against whom the seizure is ordered and 
substantially outweighs the harm to any third parties; (4) the 
applicant is likely to succeed in showing that the person 
against whom the seizure is ordered misappropriated the trade 
secret by improper means, or conspired to misappropriate the 
trade secret by improper means, and is in actual possession of 
it and any property to be seized; (5) the applicant describes 
with reasonable particularity the matter to be seized and, to 
the extent reasonable, identifies the location where the matter 
is to be seized; (6) the person against whom the seizure would 
be ordered, or those working in concert with that person, would 
destroy, move, hide, or otherwise make such matter inaccessible 
if the applicant were to provide that person notice; and (7) 
the applicant has not publicized the requested seizure.
    Before granting an ex parte seizure order, it is the 
Committee's expectation that courts will require applicants to 
describe the trade secret that would be the subject of the 
order with sufficient particularity so that the court may 
evaluate the request. The requirement of actual possession 
contained in clause (V) serves to protect third-parties from 
seizure. For instance, the operator of a server on which 
another party has stored a misappropriated trade secret, or an 
online intermediary such as an Internet service provider, would 
not be subject to seizure because their servers, and the data 
stored upon them, would not be in the actual possession of the 
defendant against whom seizure was ordered. While the court may 
not order a seizure against the third party under this 
provision, the court may decide to issue a third-party 
injunction preventing disclosure of the trade secret using its 
existing authority to provide equitable relief. The requirement 
relating to improper means is intended to prevent the seizure 
provision from being used against a party who may know it is in 
possession of a trade secret that was misappropriated, but did 
not use, or conspire to use, improper means to acquire such 
trade secret.\11\ Seizure of a trade secret that was stolen by 
one party and handed off to an accomplice is allowed under the 
clause.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\The Act's protections against the misappropriation of trade 
secrets--and the remedies it provides against such misappropriation--
are not intended to displace or restrict protections for members of the 
press recognized under the First Amendment. The Act should be applied 
consistently with the First Amendment and with the Supreme Court's 
decision in Bartnicki v. Vopper, 532 U.S. 514 (2001). That case held 
that the First Amendment protects members of the press against 
liability (including in civil actions) for disclosing information, even 
if the information was improperly or illegally obtained by another 
party in the first instance, particularly if the information relates to 
a matter of public concern. Indeed, Bartnicki recognized that the 
Supreme Court ``has repeatedly held that `if a newspaper lawfully 
obtains truthful information about a matter of public significance then 
state officials may not constitutionally punish publication of the 
information, absent a need . . . of the highest order.''' See 
Bartnicki, 532 U.S. at 528 (quoting Smith v. Daily Mail Publ'g Co., 443 
U.S. 97, 102 (1979)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Subparagraph (B) of new Sec. 1836(b)(2) provides that a 
seizure order shall (i) set forth findings of fact and 
conclusions of law required for the order; (ii) provide for the 
narrowest seizure of property necessary to protect the trade 
secret, in a manner that minimizes any interruption of the 
business operations of third parties and, to the extent 
possible, does not interrupt the legitimate business operations 
of the person accused of misappropriating the trade secret; 
(iii) be accompanied by an order protecting the seized property 
from disclosure by prohibiting access by the applicant or the 
person against whom the order is directed, and prohibiting any 
copies of the seized property, until such parties have an 
opportunity to be heard in court (iv) provide guidance to law 
enforcement officials executing the seizure that clearly 
delineates the scope of their authority, including the hours 
during which the seizure may be executed and whether force may 
be used to access locked areas; (v) set a date for a hearing at 
the earliest possible time, and no later than 7 days after the 
order has issued, unless parties involved consent to another 
date; and (vi) require the person obtaining the order to 
provide the security determined adequate by the court for 
payment of damages that person may be entitled to recover as a 
result of a wrongful or excessive seizure, or attempted 
seizure.
    Subparagraph (C) of new Sec. 1836(b)(2) requires a court, 
in issuing a seizure order, to take appropriate action to 
protect the target of the order from publicity, by or at the 
behest of the person obtaining the order, about such order and 
any seizure under such order.
    Subparagraph (D) states that any materials seized pursuant 
to an order shall be taken into the custody of the court, which 
shall secure the material from physical and electronic access. 
In implementing this subparagraph, unless there is consent from 
the parties, the court should be careful to keep any electronic 
data or storage media secure and disconnected from any network 
or the Internet, thereby increasing security of the materials. 
The court shall take appropriate measures to protect the 
confidentiality of seized materials that are unrelated to the 
trade secret, unless the person against whom the order is 
entered consents to the disclosure of the material. The court 
may appoint a special master, bound by a nondisclosure 
agreement approved by the court, to locate and isolate all 
misappropriated trade secret information and facilitate the 
return of unrelated property and data to the person from whom 
the property was seized.
    Subparagraph (E) requires service of the court's order and 
the submissions of the applicant on the party against whom the 
order is directed. The order must be carried out by a Federal 
law enforcement officer. The court may allow State and local 
law enforcement officials to participate but may not allow the 
applicant or its agents to participate. At the request of law 
enforcement, the court may appoint a neutral technical expert, 
bound by a nondisclosure agreement, to assist in the seizure if 
the court determines that the expert's participation would 
minimize the burden of the seizure.
    Subparagraph (F) provides that the court shall hold a 
hearing at which the party who obtained the order shall have 
the burden to prove the facts supporting the findings of fact 
and conclusions of law necessary to prove the order. If a party 
fails to meet the burden for its proposed seizure, the seizure 
order shall be dissolved or modified appropriately. A party 
against whom the order has been issued, or any person harmed by 
the order, may move the court at any time to dissolve or modify 
the order.
    Subparagraph (G) provides that a person who suffers damage 
by reason of a wrongful or excessive seizure has a cause of 
action against the applicant for the order under which the 
seizure was made, to recover damages, including punitive 
damages, and reasonable attorney's fees.
    Subparagraph (H) provides that a party or other person who 
claims to have an interest in the subject matter seized may 
move to encrypt any seized materials.
Remedies.
    Paragraph (3) of new Sec. 1836(b) provides the remedies for 
the misappropriation of a trade secret.
    Subparagraph (A) specifies the equitable relief available 
and is drawn directly from Sec. 2 of the Uniform Trade Secrets 
Act (``UTSA''), which forms the basis of trade secrets law in 
almost every State. Provided an order does not prevent a person 
from entering into an employment relationship or otherwise 
conflict with applicable State laws prohibiting restraints on 
trade, a court may grant an injunction to prevent any actual or 
threatened misappropriation. Any conditions placed by a court 
on employment must be based on evidence of threatened 
misappropriation, and not merely on information a person 
knows.\12\ These limitations on injunctive relief were included 
to protect employee mobility, as some have expressed concern 
that the injunctive relief authorized under the bill could 
override State-law limitations that safeguard employee mobility 
and thus could be a substantial departure from existing law in 
those states. If determined appropriate, a court may require 
affirmative actions to be taken to protect the trade secret, 
and, in exceptional circumstances that render an injunction 
inequitable, may condition future use of the trade secret upon 
payment of a reasonable royalty for no longer than the period 
of time for which such use would have been prohibited.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\The Committee notes that courts interpreting State trade secret 
laws have reached different conclusions on the applicability of the 
inevitable disclosure doctrine. Compare PepsiCo, Inc. v. Redmond, 54 
F.3d 1262, 1269 (7th Cir. 1995) (``[A] plaintiff may prove a claim of 
trade secret misappropriation by demonstrating that [the] defendant's 
new employment will inevitably lead him to rely on the plaintiff's 
trade secrets''), with Whyte v. Schlage Lock Co., 125 Cal. Rptr. 2d 
277, 281 (Ct. App. 2002) (rejecting explicitly the inevitable 
disclosure doctrine under California law).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Section (3)(A)(i)(1)(I) reinforces the importance of 
employment mobility and contains some limitations on injunctive 
relief that may be ordered. However, if a State's trade secrets 
law authorizes additional remedies, those State-law remedies 
will still be available. Some courts have found, based on the 
information possessed by the employee alone, that an injunction 
may issue to enjoin a former employee from working in a job 
that would inevitably result in the improper use of trade 
secrets. Consistent with the overall intent of the Defense 
Trade Secret Act and, in particular, Sec. (2)(f), which 
provides that the bill does not ``preempt any other provision 
of law,'' the remedies provided in Sec. (3)(A)(i)(1)(I) are 
intended to coexist with, and not to preempt, influence, or 
modify applicable State law governing when an injunction should 
issue in a trade secret misappropriation matter.
    Subparagraph (B), drawn directly from Sec. 3 of the UTSA, 
specifies the damage award that a court may issue. 
Specifically, it authorizes an award of damages for the actual 
loss and any unjust enrichment caused by the misappropriation 
of the trade secret, or, in lieu of damages measured by any 
other method, an award of a reasonable royalty. It is not the 
Committee's intent to encourage the use of reasonable royalties 
to resolve trade secret misappropriation. Rather, the Committee 
prefers other remedies that, first, halt the misappropriator's 
use and dissemination of the misappropriated trade secret and, 
second, make available appropriate damages.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\The Committee notes that courts interpreting the UTSA's 
analogous provision have held that the award of reasonable royalties is 
a remedy of last resort. See e.g., Progressive Prod., Inc. v. Swartz, 
258 P.2d 969, 979-80 (Kan. 2011) (citing the comment to Sec. 2 of the 
UTSA and explaining that an award of royalties is reserved for 
``special situation[s],'' including ``exceptional circumstances'' in 
which an overriding public interest makes an injunction untenable).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Subparagraph (C) authorizes an award of exemplary damages, 
not exceeding twice the compensatory damages awarded, if the 
trade secret is willfully and maliciously misappropriated. This 
provision is similar to Sec. 3(b) of the UTSA.
    Subparagraph (D) allows that attorney's fees may be awarded 
to the prevailing party if a claim of misappropriation is made 
in bad faith, there is willful and malicious misappropriation, 
or a motion to terminate an injunction is made or opposed in 
bad faith. This provision is modeled on Sec. 4 of the UTSA.
Jurisdiction.
    Subsection (c) of new Sec. 1836 provides that Federal 
district courts shall have original jurisdiction of civil 
actions brought under the section. This is identical to current 
subsection (b).
Period of Limitations.
    Subsection (d) of new Sec. 1836 provides a 3-year period of 
limitations in which to bring a claim under the section. This 
limitations period is now identical to the limitations period 
of the UTSA, although a number of States have modified the 
limitations period in enacting the UTSA.
Definitions; Rule of Construction; Conforming Amendments.
    Section 2(b) of the Act amends Sec. 1839 of title 18 to add 
three new definitions.
    The intent of Sec. 2(b)(1)(A)--striking ``the public'' and 
inserting ``another person who can obtain economic value from 
the disclosure or use of the information''--is to bring the 
Federal definition of a trade secret in conformity with the 
definition used in the Uniform Trade Secrets Act (``UTSA''). 
Both the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, in United 
States v. Lange, 312 F.3d 263, 267 (7th Cir. 2002), and the 
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, in United States v. 
Hsu, 155 F.3d 189, 196 (3d Cir. 1998), have identified this 
difference between the UTSA and the Federal definition of a 
trade secret as potentially meaningful. While other minor 
differences between the UTSA and Federal definition of a trade 
secret remain, the Committee does not intend for the definition 
of a trade secret to be meaningfully different from the scope 
of that definition as understood by courts in States that have 
adopted the UTSA.
    First, ``misappropriation'' is defined identically in all 
relevant respects to the definition of misappropriation in 
Sec. 1(2) of the UTSA. The Committee intentionally used this 
established definition to make clear that this Act is not 
intended to alter the balance of current trade secret law or 
alter specific court decisions.
    Second, the subsection defines ``improper means.'' The 
definition contained in subparagraph (A) is identical to the 
definition in Sec. 1(1) of the UTSA and includes theft, 
bribery, misrepresentation, breach, or inducement of a breach 
of a duty to maintain secrecy, or espionage though electronic 
or other means. Subparagraph (B) serves to clarify that reverse 
engineering and independent derivation of the trade secret do 
not constitute improper means.
    Third, the subsection defines ``Trademark Act of 1946,'' 
commonly called the Lanham Act, which provides the basis for 
recovery by a party harmed by a wrongful or excessive seizure.
    Subsection 2(c) of the Act ensures that nothing in the 
legislation is read to create a private right of action for 
conduct of a governmental entity or (following the amendment of 
18 U.S.C. Sec. 1833 by section 7 of this Act) for disclosing 
trade secret information to the Government or in a court filing 
in accordance with new 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1833(b).
    Subsection 2(d) of the Act is a conforming amendment that 
updates the title of Sec. 1836 in the section heading and table 
of sections based on the changes made by this Act.
    Subsection 2(e) provides that amendments made by section 2 
of the Act shall apply to any misappropriation for which any 
act occurs on or after the date of enactment of the Act.
    Subsection 2(f) of the Act clarifies that nothing in this 
Act modifies the rule of construction in Sec. 1838 of title 18, 
and, as a result State trade secret laws are not preempted or 
affected by this Act. Further, nothing in this Act affects an 
otherwise lawful disclosure under the Freedom of Information 
Act.
    Subsection 2(g) of the Act also specifies that the new 
civil remedy created by this Act is not to be construed as a 
law pertaining to intellectual property for purposes of any 
other Act of Congress.
Sec. 3. Trade Secret Theft Enforcement.
    Subsection 3(a) of the Act amends Sec. 1832(b) of title 18 
by revising the maximum penalty for a violation under 
Sec. 1832(a) to be the greater of $5,000,000 or three times the 
value of the stolen trade secret to the organization, including 
expenses for research and design and other costs that the 
organization has thereby avoided.
    Subsection 3(a) also amends Sec. 1835 of title 18 by adding 
a new subsection (b), which provides that the court may not 
direct the disclosure of any material the owner asserts to be a 
trade secret unless the court allows the owner to file a 
submission under seal describing the interest of the owner in 
keeping the information confidential. The provision or 
disclosure of information relating to a trade secret to the 
United States or to the court in connection with a prosecution 
does not constitute waiver of trade secret protection unless 
the owner expressly consents to such waiver. The provision is 
also intended to ensure that in a prosecution for conspiracy 
related to the alleged theft of a trade secret, the actual 
trade secret itself is not subject to disclosure to the 
defense, because the actual secrecy of the information that is 
the object of the conspiracy is not relevant to the prosecution 
of a conspiracy charge.
    Subsection 3(b) of the Act amends Sec. 1961(1) of title 18 
to include sections 1831 and 1832 relating to economic 
espionage and theft of trade secrets as predicate offenses for 
the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act.
Sec. 4. Report on Theft of Trade Secrets Occurring Abroad.
    Section 4 of the Act requires, not later than 1 year after 
the date of enactment of this act and biannually thereafter, a 
report by the Attorney General, in consultation with the 
Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator, the Director of 
the United States Patent and Trademark Office, and the heads of 
other appropriate agencies, to the Committees on the Judiciary 
of the Senate and the House of Representatives, on:
    (1) the scope and breadth of trade secret theft from United 
States companies occurring outside the United States;
    (2) the extent to which trade secret theft occurring 
outside of the United States is sponsored by foreign 
governments, agents, or instrumentalities;
    (3) the threat posed by trade secret theft occurring 
outside of the United States;
    (4) the ability and limitations of trade secret owners to 
prevent the trade secret misappropriation of trade secrets 
outside of the United States, to enforce judgment against 
foreign entities for such theft, and to prevent imports based 
on theft of trade secrets overseas;
    (5) the trade secret protections afforded United States 
companies by each country that is a trading partner of the 
United States and specific information about enforcement 
efforts available and undertaken in each such country, 
including a list of specific countries where trade secret theft 
is a significant problem for United States companies;
    (6) instances of the Federal Government working with 
foreign countries to investigate, arrest, and prosecute 
entities and individuals involved in the theft of trade secrets 
outside of the United States;
    (7) specific progress made under trade agreements and 
treaties, including any new remedies enacted by foreign 
countries, to protect United States companies from trade secret 
theft outside the United States; and
    (8) recommendations for legislative and executive branch 
actions that may be undertaken to (A) reduce the threat of and 
economic impact caused by the theft of the trade secrets of 
United States companies occurring outside of the United States; 
(B) educate United States companies regarding threats to their 
trade secrets when taken outside of the United States; (C) 
provide assistance to United States companies to reduce the 
risk of loss of their trade secrets when taken outside of the 
United States; and (D) provide a mechanism for United States 
companies to confidentially or anonymously report the theft of 
trade secrets occurring outside the United States.
Sec. 5. Sense of Congress.
    Section 5 of the Act provides that it is the sense of 
Congress that trade secret theft occurs domestically and around 
the world, and that it is harmful to United States companies 
that own and depend on trade secrets. The Economic Espionage 
Act of 1996 protects trade secrets from theft under the 
criminal law. In enacting a civil remedy, it is important when 
seizing information to balance the need to prevent or remedy 
misappropriation with the need to avoid interrupting the 
legitimate interests of the party against whom a seizure is 
issued, and the business of third parties.
Sec. 6. Best Practices.
    Section 6 directs the Federal Judicial Center to develop 
recommended best practices for seizure, storage, and security 
of information under this Act, within 2 years of the enactment. 
A copy of the recommendations and any updates made shall be 
provided to the Committees on the Judiciary of the Senate and 
the House of Representatives.
Sec. 7. Immunity from Liability for Confidential Disclosure of a Trade 
        Secret to the Government or in a Court Filing.
    Section 7 of the Act amends Sec. 1833 of title 18 by adding 
a new subsection (b). The new Sec. 1833(b)(1) provides for 
criminal and civil immunity for anyone who discloses a trade 
secret under two circumstances. Subparagraph (A) addresses 
disclosures in confidence to a Federal, State, or local 
government official, or to an attorney, for the purpose of 
reporting or investigating a suspected violation of the law. 
Subparagraph (B) applies to disclosure in a complaint or other 
document filed under seal in a judicial proceeding. The 
Committee stresses that this provision immunizes the act of 
disclosure in the limited circumstances set forth in the 
provision itself; it does not immunizes acts that are otherwise 
prohibited by law, such as the unlawful access of material by 
unauthorized means.
    Section 1833(b)(2) created by this Act provides that an 
individual who files a lawsuit against an employer for 
retaliation for reporting a suspected violation of the law may 
disclose a trade secret to an attorney for use in the 
proceeding, provided the individual files any document 
containing the trade secret under seal and does not disclose 
the trade secret other than pursuant to a court order.
    Section 1833(b)(3) requires notice of the immunity in this 
subsection to be set forth in any employment contract that 
governs the use of trade secrets, although an employer may 
choose to provide such notice by reference to a policy document 
setting forth the employer's reporting policy for a suspected 
violation of the law that provides notice of the immunity. An 
employer may not be awarded exemplary damages or attorney's 
fees under this Act against an employee to whom such notice was 
not provided. The notice requirements apply to contracts 
entered into or updated after the date of enactment of this 
subsection.
    Section 1833(b)(4) defines the term ``employee'' to include 
any individual performing work as a contractor or consultant.
    Section 1833(b)(5) is a conforming amendment to update 
Sec. 1838 of title 18 in the section heading and table of 
sections based on the changes made by this Act.

                              Agency Views

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


                               __________

         Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported

    In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by 
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law 
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new 
matter is printed in italics, and existing law in which no 
change is proposed is shown in roman):

                      TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE



           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
PART I--CRIMES

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                CHAPTER 90--PROTECTION OF TRADE SECRETS

Sec.
1831. Economic espionage.
     * * * * * * *
[1836. Civil proceedings to enjoin violations.]
1836. Civil proceedings.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 1832. Theft of trade secrets

    (a) Whoever, with intent to convert a trade secret, that is 
related to a product or service used in or intended for use in 
interstate or foreign commerce, to the economic benefit of 
anyone other than the owner thereof, and intending or knowing 
that the offense will, injure any owner of that trade secret, 
knowingly--
            (1) steals, or without authorization appropriates, 
        takes, carries away, or conceals, or by fraud, 
        artifice, or deception obtains such information;
            (2) without authorization copies, duplicates, 
        sketches, draws, photographs, downloads, uploads, 
        alters, destroys, photocopies, replicates, transmits, 
        delivers, sends, mails, communicates, or conveys such 
        information;
            (3) receives, buys, or possesses such information, 
        knowing the same to have been stolen or appropriated, 
        obtained, or converted without authorization;
            (4) attempts to commit any offense described in 
        paragraphs (1) through (3); or
            (5) conspires with one or more other persons to 
        commit any offense described in paragraphs (1) through 
        (3), and one or more of such persons do any act to 
        effect the object of the conspiracy,
shall, except as provided in subsection (b), be fined under 
this title or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.
    (b) Any organization that commits any offense described in 
subsection (a) shall be fined not more than [$5,000,000] the 
greater of $5,000,000 or 3 times the value of the stolen trade 
secret to the organization, including expenses for research and 
design and other costs of reproducing the trade secret that the 
organization has thereby avoided.

Sec. 1833. Exceptions to prohibitions

      [This chapter] (a) In General._This chapter does not 
prohibit or create a private right of action for--
            (1) any otherwise lawful activity conducted by a 
        governmental entity of the United States, a State, or a 
        political subdivision of a State; or
            (2) [the reporting of a suspected violation of law 
        to any governmental entity of the United States, a 
        State, or a political subdivision of a State, if such 
        entity has lawful authority with respect to that 
        violation] the disclosure of a trade secret in 
        accordance with subsection (b).
    (b) Immunity From Liability for Confidential Disclosure of 
a Trade Secret to the Government or in a Court Filing.--
            (1) Immunity.--An individual shall not be held 
        criminally or civilly liable under any Federal or State 
        trade secret law for the disclosure of a trade secret 
        that--
                    (A) is made--
                            (i) in confidence to a Federal, 
                        State, or local government official, 
                        either directly or indirectly, or to an 
                        attorney; and
                            (ii) solely for the purpose of 
                        reporting or investigating a suspected 
                        violation of law; or
                    (B) is made in a complaint or other 
                document filed in a lawsuit or other 
                proceeding, if such filing is made under seal.
            (2) Use of trade secret information in anti-
        retaliation lawsuit.--An individual who files a lawsuit 
        for retaliation by an employer for reporting a 
        suspected violation of law may disclose the trade 
        secret to the attorney of the individual and use the 
        trade secret information in the court proceeding, if 
        the individual--
                    (A) files any document containing the trade 
                secret under seal; and
                    (B) does not disclose the trade secret, 
                except pursuant to court order.
            (3) Notice.--
                    (A) In general.--An employer shall provide 
                notice of the immunity set forth in this 
                subsection in any contract or agreement with an 
                employee that governs the use of a trade secret 
                or other confidential information.
                    (B) Policy document.--An employer shall be 
                considered to be in compliance with the notice 
                requirement in subparagraph (A) if the employer 
                provides a cross-reference to a policy document 
                provided to the employee that sets forth the 
                employer's reporting policy for a suspected 
                violation of law.
                    (C) Non-compliance.--If an employer does 
                not comply with the notice requirement in 
                subparagraph (A), the employer may not be 
                awarded exemplary damages or attorney fees 
                under subparagraph (C) or (D) of section 
                1836(b)(3) in an action against an employee to 
                whom notice was not provided.
                    (D) Applicability.--This paragraph shall 
                apply to contracts and agreements that are 
                entered into or updated after the date of 
                enactment of this subsection.
            (4) Employee defined.--For purposes of this 
        subsection, the term ``employee'' includes any 
        individual performing work as a contractor or 
        consultant for an employer.
            (5) Rule of construction.--Except as expressly 
        provided for under this subsection, nothing in this 
        subsection shall be construed to authorize, or limit 
        liability for, an act that is otherwise prohibited by 
        law, such as the unlawful access of material by 
        unauthorized means.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 1835. Orders to preserve confidentiality

     [In any prosecution] (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.

[Sec. 1836. Civil proceedings to enjoin violations]

Sec. 1836. Civil proceedings

    (a) The Attorney General may, in a civil action, obtain 
appropriate injunctive relief against any violation of this 
chapter.
    [(b) The district courts of the United States shall have 
exclusive original jurisdiction of civil actions under this 
section.]
    (b) Private Civil Actions.--
            (1) In general.--An owner of a trade secret that is 
        misappropriated may bring a civil action under this 
        subsection if the trade secret is related to a product 
        or service used in, or intended for use in, interstate 
        or foreign commerce.
            (2) Civil seizure.--
                    (A) In general.--
                            (i) Application.--Based on an 
                        affidavit or verified complaint 
                        satisfying the requirements of this 
                        paragraph, the court may, upon ex parte 
                        application but only in extraordinary 
                        circumstances, issue an order providing 
                        for the seizure of property necessary 
                        to prevent the propagation or 
                        dissemination of the trade secret that 
                        is the subject of the action.
                            (ii) Requirements for issuing 
                        order.--The court may not grant an 
                        application under clause (i) unless the 
                        court finds that it clearly appears 
                        from specific facts that--
                                    (I) an order issued 
                                pursuant to Rule 65 of the 
                                Federal Rules of Civil 
                                Procedure or another form of 
                                equitable relief would be 
                                inadequate to achieve the 
                                purpose of this paragraph 
                                because the party to which the 
                                order would be issued would 
                                evade, avoid, or otherwise not 
                                comply with such an order;
                                    (II) an immediate and 
                                irreparable injury will occur 
                                if such seizure is not ordered;
                                    (III) the harm to the 
                                applicant of denying the 
                                application outweighs the harm 
                                to the legitimate interests of 
                                the person against whom seizure 
                                would be ordered of granting 
                                the application and 
                                substantially outweighs the 
                                harm to any third parties who 
                                may be harmed by such seizure;
                                    (IV) the applicant is 
                                likely to succeed in showing 
                                that--
                                            (aa) the 
                                        information is a trade 
                                        secret; and
                                            (bb) the person 
                                        against whom seizure 
                                        would be ordered--
                                                    (AA) 
                                                misappropriated 
                                                the trade 
                                                secret of the 
                                                applicant by 
                                                improper means; 
                                                or
                                                    (BB) 
                                                conspired to 
                                                use improper 
                                                means to 
                                                misappropriate 
                                                the trade 
                                                secret of the 
                                                applicant;
                                    (V) the person against whom 
                                seizure would be ordered has 
                                actual possession of--
                                            (aa) the trade 
                                        secret; and
                                            (bb) any property 
                                        to be seized;
                                    (VI) the application 
                                describes with reasonable 
                                particularity the matter to be 
                                seized and, to the extent 
                                reasonable under the 
                                circumstances, identifies the 
                                location where the matter is to 
                                be seized;
                                    (VII) the person against 
                                whom seizure would be ordered, 
                                or persons acting in concert 
                                with such person, would 
                                destroy, move, hide, or 
                                otherwise make such matter 
                                inaccessible to the court, if 
                                the applicant were to proceed 
                                on notice to such person; and
                                    (VIII) the applicant has 
                                not publicized the requested 
                                seizure.
                    (B) Elements of order.--If an order is 
                issued under subparagraph (A), it shall--
                            (i) set forth findings of fact and 
                        conclusions of law required for the 
                        order;
                            (ii) provide for the narrowest 
                        seizure of property necessary to 
                        achieve the purpose of this paragraph 
                        and direct that the seizure be 
                        conducted in a manner that minimizes 
                        any interruption of the business 
                        operations of third parties and, to the 
                        extent possible, does not interrupt the 
                        legitimate business operations of the 
                        person accused of misappropriating the 
                        trade secret;
                            (iii)(I) be accompanied by an order 
                        protecting the seized property from 
                        disclosure by prohibiting access by the 
                        applicant or the person against whom 
                        the order is directed, and prohibiting 
                        any copies, in whole or in part, of the 
                        seized property, to prevent undue 
                        damage to the party against whom the 
                        order has issued or others, until such 
                        parties have an opportunity to be heard 
                        in court; and
                            (II) provide that if access is 
                        granted by the court to the applicant 
                        or the person against whom the order is 
                        directed, the access shall be 
                        consistent with subparagraph (D);
                            (iv) provide guidance to the law 
                        enforcement officials executing the 
                        seizure that clearly delineates the 
                        scope of the authority of the 
                        officials, including--
                                    (I) the hours during which 
                                the seizure may be executed; 
                                and
                                    (II) whether force may be 
                                used to access locked areas;
                            (v) set a date for a hearing 
                        described in subparagraph (F) at the 
                        earliest possible time, and not later 
                        than 7 days after the order has issued, 
                        unless the party against whom the order 
                        is directed and others harmed by the 
                        order consent to another date for the 
                        hearing, except that a party against 
                        whom the order has issued or any person 
                        harmed by the order may move the court 
                        at any time to dissolve or modify the 
                        order after giving notice to the 
                        applicant who obtained the order; and
                            (vi) require the person obtaining 
                        the order to provide the security 
                        determined adequate by the court for 
                        the payment of the damages that any 
                        person may be entitled to recover as a 
                        result of a wrongful or excessive 
                        seizure or wrongful or excessive 
                        attempted seizure under this paragraph.
                    (C) Protection from publicity.--The court 
                shall take appropriate action to protect the 
                person against whom an order under this 
                paragraph is directed from publicity, by or at 
                the behest of the person obtaining the order, 
                about such order and any seizure under such 
                order.
                    (D) Materials in custody of court.--
                            (i) In general.--Any materials 
                        seized under this paragraph shall be 
                        taken into the custody of the court. 
                        The court shall secure the seized 
                        material from physical and electronic 
                        access during the seizure and while in 
                        the custody of the court.
                            (ii) Storage medium.--If the seized 
                        material includes a storage medium, or 
                        if the seized material is stored on a 
                        storage medium, the court shall 
                        prohibit the medium from being 
                        connected to a network or the Internet 
                        without the consent of both parties, 
                        until the hearing required under 
                        subparagraph (B)(v) and described in 
                        subparagraph (F).
                            (iii) Protection of 
                        confidentiality.--The court shall take 
                        appropriate measures to protect the 
                        confidentiality of seized materials 
                        that are unrelated to the trade secret 
                        information ordered seized pursuant to 
                        this paragraph unless the person 
                        against whom the order is entered 
                        consents to disclosure of the material.
                            (iv) Appointment of special 
                        master.--The court may appoint a 
                        special master to locate and isolate 
                        all misappropriated trade secret 
                        information and to facilitate the 
                        return of unrelated property and data 
                        to the person from whom the property 
                        was seized. The special master 
                        appointed by the court shall agree to 
                        be bound by a non-disclosure agreement 
                        approved by the court.
                    (E) Service of order.--The court shall 
                order that service of a copy of the order under 
                this paragraph, and the submissions of the 
                applicant to obtain the order, shall be made by 
                a Federal law enforcement officer who, upon 
                making service, shall carry out the seizure 
                under the order. The court may allow State or 
                local law enforcement officials to participate, 
                but may not permit the applicant or any agent 
                of the applicant to participate in the seizure. 
                At the request of law enforcement officials, 
                the court may allow a technical expert who is 
                unaffiliated with the applicant and who is 
                bound by a court-approved non-disclosure 
                agreement to participate in the seizure if the 
                court determines that the participation of the 
                expert will aid the efficient execution of and 
                minimize the burden of the seizure.
                    (F) Seizure hearing.--
                            (i) Date.--A court that issues a 
                        seizure order shall hold a hearing on 
                        the date set by the court under 
                        subparagraph (B)(v).
                            (ii) Burden of proof.--At a hearing 
                        held under this subparagraph, the party 
                        who obtained the order under 
                        subparagraph (A) shall have the burden 
                        to prove the facts supporting the 
                        findings of fact and conclusions of law 
                        necessary to support the order. If the 
                        party fails to meet that burden, the 
                        seizure order shall be dissolved or 
                        modified appropriately.
                            (iii) Dissolution or modification 
                        of order.--A party against whom the 
                        order has been issued or any person 
                        harmed by the order may move the court 
                        at any time to dissolve or modify the 
                        order after giving notice to the party 
                        who obtained the order.
                            (iv) Discovery time limits.--The 
                        court may make such orders modifying 
                        the time limits for discovery under the 
                        Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as may 
                        be necessary to prevent the frustration 
                        of the purposes of a hearing under this 
                        subparagraph.
                    (G) Action for damage caused by wrongful 
                seizure.--A person who suffers damage by reason 
                of a wrongful or excessive seizure under this 
                paragraph has a cause of action against the 
                applicant for the order under which such 
                seizure was made, and shall be entitled to the 
                same relief as is provided under section 
                34(d)(11) of the Trademark Act of 1946 (15 
                U.S.C. 1116(d)(11)). The security posted with 
                the court under subparagraph (B)(vi) shall not 
                limit the recovery of third parties for 
                damages.
                    (H) Motion for encryption.--A party or a 
                person who claims to have an interest in the 
                subject matter seized may make a motion at any 
                time, which may be heard ex parte, to encrypt 
                any material seized or to be seized under this 
                paragraph that is stored on a storage medium. 
                The motion shall include, when possible, the 
                desired encryption method.
            (3) Remedies.--In a civil action brought under this 
        subsection with respect to the misappropriation of a 
        trade secret, a court may--
                    (A) grant an injunction--
                            (i) to prevent any actual or 
                        threatened misappropriation described 
                        in paragraph (1) on such terms as the 
                        court deems reasonable, provided the 
                        order does not--
                                    (I) prevent a person from 
                                entering into an employment 
                                relationship, and that 
                                conditions placed on such 
                                employment shall be based on 
                                evidence of threatened 
                                misappropriation and not merely 
                                on the information the person 
                                knows; or
                                    (II) otherwise conflict 
                                with an applicable State law 
                                prohibiting restraints on the 
                                practice of a lawful 
                                profession, trade, or business;
                            (ii) if determined appropriate by 
                        the court, requiring affirmative 
                        actions to be taken to protect the 
                        trade secret; and
                            (iii) in exceptional circumstances 
                        that render an injunction inequitable, 
                        that conditions future use of the trade 
                        secret upon payment of a reasonable 
                        royalty for no longer than the period 
                        of time for which such use could have 
                        been prohibited;
                    (B) award--
                            (i)(I) damages for actual loss 
                        caused by the misappropriation of the 
                        trade secret; and
                            (II) damages for any unjust 
                        enrichment caused by the 
                        misappropriation of the trade secret 
                        that is not addressed in computing 
                        damages for actual loss; or
                            (ii) in lieu of damages measured by 
                        any other methods, the damages caused 
                        by the misappropriation measured by 
                        imposition of liability for a 
                        reasonable royalty for the 
                        misappropriator's unauthorized 
                        disclosure or use of the trade secret;
                    (C) if the trade secret is willfully and 
                maliciously misappropriated, award exemplary 
                damages in an amount not more than 2 times the 
                amount of the damages awarded under 
                subparagraph (B); and
                    (D) if a claim of the misappropriation is 
                made in bad faith, which may be established by 
                circumstantial evidence, a motion to terminate 
                an injunction is made or opposed in bad faith, 
                or the trade secret was willfully and 
                maliciously misappropriated, award reasonable 
                attorney's fees to the prevailing party.
    (c) Jurisdiction.--The district courts of the United States 
shall have original jurisdiction of civil actions brought under 
this section.
    (d) Period of Limitations.--A civil action under subsection 
(b) may not be commenced later than 3 years after the date on 
which the misappropriation with respect to which the action 
would relate is discovered or by the exercise of reasonable 
diligence should have been discovered. For purposes of this 
subsection, a continuing misappropriation constitutes a single 
claim of misappropriation.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 1838. Construction with other laws

     [This chapter] Except as provided in section 1833(b), this 
chapter shall not be construed to preempt or displace any other 
remedies, whether civil or criminal, provided by United States 
Federal, State, commonwealth, possession, or territory law for 
the misappropriation of a trade secret, or to affect the 
otherwise lawful disclosure of information by any Government 
employee under section 552 of title 5 (commonly known as the 
Freedom of Information Act).

Sec. 1839. Definitions

     As used in this chapter--
            (1) the term ``foreign instrumentality;'' means any 
        agency, bureau, ministry, component, institution, 
        association, or any legal, commercial, or business 
        organization, corporation, firm, or entity that is 
        substantially owned, controlled, sponsored, commanded, 
        managed, or dominated by a foreign government;
            (2) the term ``foreign agent'' means any officer, 
        employee, proxy, servant, delegate, or representative 
        of a foreign government;
            (3) the term ``trade secret'' means all forms and 
        types of financial, business, scientific, technical, 
        economic, or engineering information, including 
        patterns, plans, compilations, program devices, 
        formulas, designs, prototypes, methods, techniques, 
        processes, procedures, programs, or codes, whether 
        tangible or intangible, and whether or how stored, 
        compiled, or memorialized physically, electronically, 
        graphically, photographically, or in writing if--
                    (A) the owner thereof has taken reasonable 
                measures to keep such information secret; and
                    (B) the information derives independent 
                economic value, actual or potential, from not 
                being generally known to, and not being readily 
                ascertainable through proper means by, [the 
                public] another person who can obtain economic 
                value from the disclosure or use of the 
                information; [and]
            (4) the term ``owner'', with respect to a trade 
        secret, means the person or entity in whom or in which 
        rightful legal or equitable title to, or license in, 
        the trade secret is reposed[.];
            (5) the term ``misappropriation'' means--
                    (A) acquisition of a trade secret of 
                another by a person who knows or has reason to 
                know that the trade secret was acquired by 
                improper means; or
                    (B) disclosure or use of a trade secret of 
                another without express or implied consent by a 
                person who--
                            (i) used improper means to acquire 
                        knowledge of the trade secret;
                            (ii) at the time of disclosure or 
                        use, knew or had reason to know that 
                        the knowledge of the trade secret was--
                                    (I) derived from or through 
                                a person who had used improper 
                                means to acquire the trade 
                                secret;
                                    (II) acquired under 
                                circumstances giving rise to a 
                                duty to maintain the secrecy of 
                                the trade secret or limit the 
                                use of the trade secret; or
                                    (III) derived from or 
                                through a person who owed a 
                                duty to the person seeking 
                                relief to maintain the secrecy 
                                of the trade secret or limit 
                                the use of the trade secret; or
                            (iii) before a material change of 
                        the position of the person, knew or had 
                        reason to know that--
                                    (I) the trade secret was a 
                                trade secret; and
                                    (II) knowledge of the trade 
                                secret had been acquired by 
                                accident or mistake;
            (6) the term ``improper means''--
                    (A) includes theft, bribery, 
                misrepresentation, breach or inducement of a 
                breach of a duty to maintain secrecy, or 
                espionage through electronic or other means; 
                and
                    (B) does not include reverse engineering, 
                independent derivation, or any other lawful 
                means of acquisition; and
            (7) the term ``Trademark Act of 1946'' means the 
        Act entitled ``An Act to provide for the registration 
        and protection of trademarks used in commerce, to carry 
        out the provisions of certain international 
        conventions, and for other purposes, approved July 5, 
        1946 (15 U.S.C. 1051 et seq.) (commonly referred to as 
        the `Trademark Act of 1946' or the `Lanham Act')''.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


       CHAPTER 96--RACKETEER INFLUENCED AND CORRUPT ORGANIZATIONS

Sec. 1961. Definitions

     As used in this chapter--
            (1) ``racketeering activity'' means (A) any act or 
        threat involving murder, kidnapping, gambling, arson, 
        robbery, bribery, extortion, dealing in obscene matter, 
        or dealing in a controlled substance or listed chemical 
        (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances 
        Act), which is chargeable under State law and 
        punishable by imprisonment for more than one year; (B) 
        any act which is indictable under any of the following 
        provisions of title 18, United States Code: Section 201 
        (relating to bribery), section 224 (relating to sports 
        bribery), sections 471, 472, and 473 (relating to 
        counterfeiting), section 659 (relating to theft from 
        interstate shipment) if the act indictable under 
        section 659 is felonious, section 664 (relating to 
        embezzlement from pension and welfare funds), sections 
        891-894 (relating to extortionate credit transactions), 
        section 1028 (relating to fraud and related activity in 
        connection with identification documents), section 1029 
        (relating to fraud and related activity in connection 
        with access devices), section 1084 (relating to the 
        transmission of gambling information), section 1341 
        (relating to mail fraud), section 1343 (relating to 
        wire fraud), section 1344 (relating to financial 
        institution fraud), section 1351 (relating to fraud in 
        foreign labor contracting), section 1425 (relating to 
        the procurement of citizenship or nationalization 
        unlawfully), section 1426 (relating to the reproduction 
        of naturalization or citizenship papers), section 1427 
        (relating to the sale of naturalization or citizenship 
        papers), sections 1461-1465 (relating to obscene 
        matter), section 1503 (relating to obstruction of 
        justice), section 1510 (relating to obstruction of 
        criminal investigations), section 1511 (relating to the 
        obstruction of State or local law enforcement), section 
        1512 (relating to tampering with a witness, victim, or 
        an informant), section 1513 (relating to retaliating 
        against a witness, victim, or an informant), section 
        1542 (relating to false statement in application and 
        use of passport), section 1543 (relating to forgery or 
        false use of passport), section 1544 (relating to 
        misuse of passport), section 1546 (relating to fraud 
        and misuse of visas, permits, and other documents), 
        sections 1581-1592 (relating to peonage, slavery, and 
        trafficking in persons)., sections 1831 and 1832 
        (relating to economic espionage and theft of trade 
        secrets), section 1951 (relating to interference with 
        commerce, robbery, or extortion), section 1952 
        (relating to racketeering), section 1953 (relating to 
        interstate transportation of wagering paraphernalia), 
        section 1954 (relating to unlawful welfare fund 
        payments), section 1955 (relating to the prohibition of 
        illegal gambling businesses), section 1956 (relating to 
        the laundering of monetary instruments), section 1957 
        (relating to engaging in monetary transactions in 
        property derived from specified unlawful activity), 
        section 1958 (relating to use of interstate commerce 
        facilities in the commission of murder-for-hire), 
        section 1960 (relating to illegal money transmitters), 
        sections 2251, 2251A, 2252, and 2260 (relating to 
        sexual exploitation of children), sections 2312 and 
        2313 (relating to interstate transportation of stolen 
        motor vehicles), sections 2314 and 2315 (relating to 
        interstate transportation of stolen property), section 
        2318 (relating to trafficking in counterfeit labels for 
        phonorecords, computer programs or computer program 
        documentation or packaging and copies of motion 
        pictures or other audiovisual works), section 2319 
        (relating to criminal infringement of a copyright), 
        section 2319A (relating to unauthorized fixation of and 
        trafficking in sound recordings and music videos of 
        live musical performances), section 2320 (relating to 
        trafficking in goods or services bearing counterfeit 
        marks), section 2321 (relating to trafficking in 
        certain motor vehicles or motor vehicle parts), 
        sections 2341-2346 (relating to trafficking in 
        contraband cigarettes), sections 2421-24 (relating to 
        white slave traffic), sections 175-178 (relating to 
        biological weapons), sections 229-F (relating to 
        chemical weapons), section 831 (relating to nuclear 
        materials),(C) any act which is indictable under title 
        29, United States Code, section 186 (dealing with 
        restrictions on payments and loans to labor 
        organizations) or section 501(c) (relating to 
        embezzlement from union funds), (D) any offense 
        involving fraud connected with a case under title 11 
        (except a case under section 157 of this title), fraud 
        in the sale of securities, or the felonious 
        manufacture, importation, receiving, concealment, 
        buying, selling, or otherwise dealing in a controlled 
        substance or listed chemical (as defined in section 102 
        of the Controlled Substances Act), punishable under any 
        law of the United States, (E) any act which is 
        indictable under the Currency and Foreign Transactions 
        Reporting Act, (F) any act which is indictable under 
        the Immigration and Nationality Act, section 274 
        (relating to bringing in and harboring certain aliens), 
        section 277 (relating to aiding or assisting certain 
        aliens to enter the United States), or section 278 
        (relating to importation of alien for immoral purpose) 
        if the act indictable under such section of such Act 
        was committed for the purpose of financial gain, or (G) 
        any act that is indictable under any provision listed 
        in section 2332b(g)(5)(B);
            (2) ``State'' means any State of the United States, 
        the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto 
        Rico, any territory or possession of the United States, 
        any political subdivision, or any department, agency, 
        or instrumentality thereof;
            (3) ``person'' includes any individual or entity 
        capable of holding a legal or beneficial interest in 
        property;
            (4) ``enterprise'' includes any individual, 
        partnership, corporation, association, or other legal 
        entity, and any union or group of individuals 
        associated in fact although not a legal entity;
            (5) ``pattern of racketeering activity'' requires 
        at least two acts of racketeering activity, one of 
        which occurred after the effective date of this chapter 
        and the last of which occurred within ten years 
        (excluding any period of imprisonment) after the 
        commission of a prior act of racketeering activity;
            (6) ``unlawful debt'' means a debt (A) incurred or 
        contracted in gambling activity which was in violation 
        of the law of the United States, a State or political 
        subdivision thereof, or which is unenforceable under 
        State or Federal law in whole or in part as to 
        principal or interest because of the laws relating to 
        usury, and (B) which was incurred in connection with 
        the business of gambling in violation of the law of the 
        United States, a State or political subdivision 
        thereof, or the business of lending money or a thing of 
        value at a rate usurious under State or Federal law, 
        where the usurious rate is at least twice the 
        enforceable rate;
            (7) ``racketeering investigator'' means any 
        attorney or investigator so designated by the Attorney 
        General and charged with the duty of enforcing or 
        carrying into effect this chapter;
            (8) ``racketeering investigation'' means any 
        inquiry conducted by any racketeering investigator for 
        the purpose of ascertaining whether any person has been 
        involved in any violation of this chapter or of any 
        final order, judgment, or decree of any court of the 
        United States, duly entered in any case or proceeding 
        arising under this chapter;
            (9) ``documentary material'' includes any book, 
        paper, document, record, recording, or other material; 
        and
            (10) ``Attorney General'' includes the Attorney 
        General of the United States, the Deputy Attorney 
        General of the United States, the Associate Attorney 
        General of the United States, any Assistant Attorney 
        General of the United States, or any employee of the 
        Department of Justice or any employee of any department 
        or agency of the United States so designated by the 
        Attorney General to carry out the powers conferred on 
        the Attorney General by this chapter. Any department or 
        agency so designated may use in investigations 
        authorized by this chapter either the investigative 
        provisions of this chapter or the investigative power 
        of such department or agency otherwise conferred by 
        law.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                                  [all]