A recent complaint alleging trade secret misappropriation in the Eastern District of New York demonstrates the importance of combing an alleged trade secret misappropriator’s social media for subtle – and not-so-subtle – evidence of their wrongdoing.

The United States has charged Klaus Pflugbeil and Yilong Shao with conspiring to convey a trade secret without authorization within the Eastern District of New York. Pflugbeil has been arrested, while Shao remains at large.

Pflugbeil and Shao are former employees of a Canadian manufacturing company that was acquired by Tesla[1] in 2019. Pflugbeil served as the head of the company’s office in China from 1997 to 2009. Shao worked for the company in China as a Sales and Service Technician from 2010 to 2020. The Canadian manufacturer produced precision dispensing pumps, a component used in producing battery assembly lines. The assembly lines using this technology are notable because they employ continuous motion assembly (the “Battery Assembly Trade Secret”), which allows manufacturers to run battery production lines at high speeds without pauses. This enables manufacturing of five to ten times more parts per minute than with competing technology.

Tesla acquired the Canadian manufacturer, and the Battery Assembly Trade Secret, in 2019. It later stopped selling pumps and battery assembly lines directly to consumers, and instead licensed the Battery Assembly Trade Secret to a single company in Japan. Around this time, Shao proposed to Pflugbeil that the two go into business together to sell competing products. The two exchanged numerous documents reflecting the Battery Assembly Trade Secret, and in one email, Shao stated explicitly that the documents should not look “like a copy.” Their business began selling precision dispensing pumps and battery assembly lines reflecting the Battery Assembly Trade Secret information in 2020.

In addition to their emails and the documents they exchanged, prosecutors discovered a significant amount of evidence against the Defendants on social media pages set up by Pflugbeil. In one instance, Pflugbeil posted on his LinkedIn account that it was “great to see that the [Tesla]-style pumps are getting the full attention they deserve in South America! The [Business-1][2] team is ready to supply spare parts and the completely new [Business-1] precision pumps.” He also posted a video on YouTube with the caption, “[Business-1] Systems Canada produces precision metering pumps. These used to be sold by a company called [Canadian Manufacturer] (no longer in business). We are introducing [Business-1] Canada in this video.” One commenter on the YouTube video wrote, “I thought that this pump assembly business was taken over by [the Licensee], Japan.” Pflugbeil responded to this comment in a manner that indicated his knowledge of this fact.

Perhaps most ironically, Pflugbeil had chosen the below photo as the header for his LinkedIn page:

The investigation into Pflugbeil and Shao’s alleged theft culminated with a visit by Pflugbeil to Long Island in New York, where he met with undercover agents posing as businessmen and attempted to convey the trade secret information to them.

The case against the Defendants remains in early stages, and they are presumed innocent until proven guilty. However, their social media missteps are a powerful lesson in monitoring and evidence-gathering for companies guarding against misappropriation of their trade secrets: sometimes, relevant evidence won’t be hidden, but rather will be flaunted for all to see.


[1] The Complaint identifies the company only as Victim Company-1. Bloomberg News has obtained and reviewed information confirming Victim Company-1 refers to Tesla. Source:Stolen Tesla Battery Technology Peddled on YouTube, US Says.

[2] The name of the Defendants’ business is not disclosed in the Complaint.

Print:
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Photo of Baldassare Vinti Baldassare Vinti

Baldassare (“Baldo”) Vinti is the head of Proskauer’s Intellectual Property Litigation Group.

Baldo is a first-chair trial lawyer known for navigating complex, bet-the-company intellectual property disputes across industry verticals and next-generation technologies. With over 25 years of experience, Baldo represents leading global companies…

Baldassare (“Baldo”) Vinti is the head of Proskauer’s Intellectual Property Litigation Group.

Baldo is a first-chair trial lawyer known for navigating complex, bet-the-company intellectual property disputes across industry verticals and next-generation technologies. With over 25 years of experience, Baldo represents leading global companies and universities in patent, trade secret, false advertising, consumer class actions and technology-related breach of contract litigation in federal and state courts as well as before the International Trade Commission.

Baldo is particularly sought after for his courtroom skill and strategic depth, having led trials, arbitrations and appeals in high-stakes disputes involving technologies ranging from pharmaceuticals and medical devices to encryption, digital media, diagnostics, mobile platforms and software. Baldo has represented global corporations, including Arkema S.A., British Telecommunications PLC, Church & Dwight Co., Inc., Henry Schein, Inc., Maidenform Brands Inc., Mitsubishi Electric Corp., Ossur North America Inc., Panasonic Corp., Sony Corp., Welch Foods, Inc. and Zenith Electronics LLC.

With a background in pharmacy, Baldo brings deep domain expertise to pharmaceutical litigation. He has a proven record of driving successful outcomes in complex pharmaceutical milestone payment, royalty and licensing disputes—often stemming from collaboration agreements, co-development deals, and M&A transactions—where the financial and strategic stakes run high.

In addition to representing corporate clients, Baldo works closely with university innovation and technology transfer offices to maximize the financial return of research investments. He develops tailored IP asset optimization strategies and aggressively enforces intellectual property rights to protect and monetize core innovations—whether through high-value licensing agreements, shaping and advancing spin-out company development, or successful litigation.

Baldo also provides strategic counsel on IP due diligence, complex licensing, IP structuring, patentability and freedom-to-operate analyses, and infringement and validity opinions. He advises boards and executive teams on aligning IP strategy with business objectives, mitigating risk and maximizing the value of innovation assets.

A frequent author and commentator on intellectual property topics, Baldo has been quoted in the National Law Journal, Bloomberg BNA, Law360, Westlaw Journal and Inside Counsel magazine. He is also a regular contributor to articles published in Medical Product Outsourcing magazine that deal with the medical device industry.

Baldo served as a judicial intern for Hon. John E. Sprizzo of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and for Hon. Charles A. LaTorella of the New York Supreme Court.

Photo of Nicole O. Swanson Nicole O. Swanson

Nicole Swanson is an associate in the Litigation Department.

Nicole earned her J.D. from New York University School of Law, where she served as a Managing Editor of the Moot Court Board and was elected to the Order of Barristers. While at NYU…

Nicole Swanson is an associate in the Litigation Department.

Nicole earned her J.D. from New York University School of Law, where she served as a Managing Editor of the Moot Court Board and was elected to the Order of Barristers. While at NYU, Nicole externed with the Civil Division of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York.

Prior to law school, Nicole served as an AmeriCorps volunteer in Phoenix, Arizona, working with self-represented litigants in family court.

Nicole maintains an active pro bono practice. She volunteers with LIFT (Legal Information for Families Today) to provide family law consults, and serves as a member of LIFT’s junior board. She also supports the New York State Courts’ Pandemic Practices Working Group in its efforts to evaluate court policies adopted in response to COVID-19.