Ninth Circuit Says 'No Immunity' to Chinese Firms in DuPont Trade Secret Case

The Ninth Circuit just delivered a major blow to corporate cloak-and-dagger defenses, affirming that the Pangang Companies—accused of conspiring to steal DuPont’s chloride-route titanium dioxide (TiO) technology—aren’t immune from prosecution under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) or federal common law. Despite their links to China’s state-owned enterprise apparatus, the court found the companies functioned as typical commercial entities, not state agencies. Their alleged commercial espionage might have aligned with China’s economic priorities, but profit motive—not public governance—was the core driver. That distinction mattered: sovereign immunity only applies when an entity acts like a government, not a global competitor.

For firms handling trade secret disputes or cross-border investigations, this case is a wake-up call: asserting immunity requires more than foreign ownership and a national flag—it takes proof of actual sovereign function. We can help litigators get that distinction crystal clear.