Engineer Convicted of Stealing Philips Trade Secrets
A federal jury in Chicago convicted Chih-Yee Jen on charges of conspiracy to steal trade secrets and possession of stolen trade secrets.
3 reports on this incident · first at Aug 24, 2026, 5:17 p.m. ET
This case is not concluded. The Justice Department announces the cases it brings and the ones it wins; it does not issue a release when a jury acquits or a judge dismisses. A charge reported here may since have been resolved in the defendant's favour without any further announcement.
We last searched for new coverage of this at Aug 24, 2026, 6:09 p.m. ET — checked 2h ago.
Earlier reports
Aug 24, 2026, 5:21 p.m. ET
Jury Convicts Engineer of Stealing Philips Trade Secrets
A federal jury in the Northern District of Illinois has convicted Chih-Yee Jen, 71, of Mequon, Wisconsin, on charges of conspiracy to steal, misappropriate, or possess trade secrets and possession or attempted possession of stolen trade secrets, according to the U.S. Department of Justice.
The government alleged that Jen, while employed at Philips, shared confidential Philips documents with Kunshan GuoLi and Xiaoqin Du, copied proprietary X-ray trade secret information, and used it to develop technology for a Kunshan GuoLi subsidiary. The FBI investigated the case.
Sentencing has not yet been scheduled. Other defendants named in the case include Fince Tendian, Vladimir Nevtonenko, Xiaoqin Du, Kunshan GuoLi Electronic Technology Co Ltd., and Kunshan Yiyuan Medical Technology Co. Ltd.
Aug 24, 2026, 5:17 p.m. ETFirst report
Jury Convicts Engineer of Stealing Philips Trade Secrets
A federal jury in the Northern District of Illinois has convicted Chih-Yee Jen, 71, of Mequon, Wisconsin, on charges of conspiracy to steal, misappropriate, or possess trade secrets and possession or attempted possession of stolen trade secrets, the Justice Department reported. The conviction was announced on August 24, 2026.
The government alleged that Jen, while employed at Philips, shared confidential Philips documents with Kunshan GuoLi and Xiaoqin Du, copied proprietary X-ray trade secret information, and used it to develop technology for a Kunshan GuoLi subsidiary. Also convicted were Fince Tendian, 57, of Aurora, Illinois; Vladimir Nevtonenko, 77, of Arlington Heights, Illinois; Xiaoqin Du, 64, of Suzhou, China; Kunshan GuoLi Electronic Technology Co Ltd.; and Kunshan Yiyuan Medical Technology Co. Ltd., according to the Justice Department.
The FBI investigated the case. Sentencing has not been scheduled.
Was this report accurate and useful?
Sources
Revision history
- Version 124 Aug 2026, 21:21current
First published.
- Version 124 Aug 2026, 21:17current
First published.
- Version 124 Aug 2026, 21:22current
First published.
How we work
This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble — all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.
Reports are built from primary sources — accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements — and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.
Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld — a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them — and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.
None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.