01 / Executive brief
Executive summary
Coca-Cola invited coatings suppliers to share protected BPA-free formulas so it could test safer linings for beverage cans. Xiaorong You was one of the few customer employees permitted to see those competitors' submissions—a legitimate evaluation role that concentrated seven companies' confidential chemistry in one trusted account. S1 S2
As she pursued a coatings venture in China, You copied supplier and Eastman files to personal cloud and removable storage. Grant materials portrayed the planned company as possessing technology capable of breaking an international market monopoly. A jury convicted her; the Sixth Circuit affirmed the convictions but rejected the original sentencing-loss calculation, and a district court later recalculated intended loss at $30.45 million. S1 S2 S3
A beverage can's thin internal coating separates the drink from the metal. The case concerned proprietary BPA-free coating formulations shared for customer testing. Contextual image; not evidence from the prosecution.
Adodge · Public domain ↗02 / The vignette
What happened
A customer's test program became an aggregation point
Coatings makers disclosed formulations to Coca-Cola under nondisclosure agreements so the beverage company could compare BPA-free alternatives. You's testing position gave her rare access across multiple suppliers. The case illustrates a recurring risk: a neutral customer, integrator, or evaluator can become the only place where several competitors' secrets sit side by side. S1 S2
Blocked copying shifted to personal channels
Near the end of her Coca-Cola employment, You attempted to move protected files and, after one transfer path was blocked, uploaded material to a personal Google Drive account and copied it to removable storage. She later took Eastman information as well, retaining the combined portfolio while developing a separate China-based coatings business. S2
The venture advertised a shortcut
You worked with Weihai Jinhong Group and pursued Chinese national, provincial, and city support. Venture materials claimed advanced BPA-free capability that could break a foreign market monopoly. Her convictions remain intact, but the penalty record needs precision: the appellate court vacated the original sentence for a flawed loss calculation, and the reviewed sources do not establish a final amended prison term after the $30.45 million recalculation. S1 S2 S3
03 / Anatomy
How access became transfer
This six-part framework asks the same questions of every file. Each stage carries its own evidence state; a listed stage can be alleged, inferred, interrupted, disputed, or not established. The structure does not manufacture a completed transfer or harm.
- 01
- 02
- 03
Acquisition assessed Adjudicated or admitted
Cloud and USB copying
After a blocked transfer attempt, You uploaded files to a personal Google Drive account and copied them to removable storage; she later copied Eastman files as well. S2
- 04
- 05
Downstream use assessed Adjudicated or admitted
Technology marketed in grant plans
Grant materials represented that the planned company possessed advanced BPA-free technology capable of breaking an international market monopoly. S2
- 06
04 / Evidence boundary
What is established—and what is not
Established in the record
- You's convictions establish unauthorized possession of seven companies' protected coating information and an economic-espionage conspiracy; the convictions were affirmed on appeal. S1 S2
- The scheme exploited a customer's legitimate testing access to multiple suppliers' secrets, then carried those files into a separate commercial plan. S1 S2
- Chinese national, provincial, and city grant support was part of the venture record considered at trial. S2
Uncertain, limited, or unresolved
- The reviewed public materials document the 2024 intended-loss ruling but not the final amended prison judgment; this file therefore does not present the original 168-month term as current. S2 S3
- The nearly $120 million development-cost figure described at the first sentencing is not a finding of actual loss, and the appellate court rejected the original intended-loss calculation. S1 S2
Subject response / procedural context
- You argued on appeal that trial testimony was racially prejudicial, that the jury instructions misstated the required knowledge, and that the loss analysis was improper. The court rejected the trial challenges but agreed that the sentencing calculation was clearly erroneous. S2
05 / Sequence
Timeline
-
Coca-Cola access begins
You began testing BPA-free can-coating technologies and obtained access to suppliers' protected formulas. S2
-
Files moved to personal storage
Near the end of her Coca-Cola employment, You copied protected coating files to personal cloud and removable storage. S2
-
Jury conviction
A federal jury convicted You of economic espionage, trade-secret, and wire-fraud offenses. S1
-
Initial sentence
The district court imposed 168 months in prison, supervised release, and a fine. S1
-
Convictions affirmed; sentence vacated
The Sixth Circuit upheld all convictions but found clear error in the intended-loss calculation and remanded for resentencing. S2
-
Loss recalculated
On remand, the district court estimated intended loss at $30.45 million for sentencing purposes. S3
06 / People and institutions
Who appears in the public record
Xiaorong You
Former Coca-Cola and Eastman chemist S1 S2 S3
Outcome: Convicted on all counts; convictions affirmed; original sentence vacated for resentencing S1 S3
Xiaorong You: The affirmed economic-espionage convictions establish the required intent or knowledge that the conduct would benefit a foreign government, instrumentality, or agent; the appellate record also documents national and local Chinese government grants. S1 S2 S3
Weihai Jinhong Group
Proposed Chinese corporate partner in the coatings venture S1 S2 S3
Originator / affected institution
AkzoNobel, BASF, Dow, PPG, Sherwin-Williams, ToyoChem, and Eastman
Owners of the protected BPA-free coating formulations and related information S1 S2 S3
Originator / affected institution
The Coca-Cola Company
Testing customer entrusted with suppliers' formulas and You's employer during the initial access period S1 S2 S3
07 / Consequences
Documented, attributed, potential, and unknown consequences
08 / Hindsight analysis
Where leadership could have seen risk
These are our analytic judgments based on the public record, not court findings. They are framed to improve controls without treating nationality as a risk factor.
A customer became an aggregation point
Coca-Cola legitimately held competing suppliers' formulas. Concentrating multiple firms' crown jewels in one testing environment magnified the impact of one insider.
A blocked copy was an escalation signal
The first transfer attempt was stopped, but the same objective was achieved through personal cloud storage. Controls needed correlation across channels, not a single blocked event.
Outside venture signals were disconnected
Grant applications and a planned competing company were relevant to the employee's access risk but were not surfaced to the organizations holding the formulas.
09 / Apply the lesson
Actions leaders can take
- companies
Partition supplier-confidential data
Keep each supplier's formulas in separate workspaces, restrict cross-project search and export, and require named, time-limited access tied to a testing purpose.
- both
Correlate blocked exfiltration
Treat a blocked bulk copy as an investigation trigger across cloud uploads, removable media, printing, messaging, and nearby account activity rather than as a completed control.
- companies
Reconcile outside ventures
Require periodic disclosure of relevant ownership, grant applications, consulting, and commercialization plans, then compare them with sensitive-access roles using counsel-approved criteria.
10 / Source record
Sources
Links point to the public record reviewed for this file. Government releases can summarize court proceedings but remain government-authored sources; the source note identifies those limits.
- S1 official summary government release
Ph.D. Chemist Sentenced to 168 Months for Economic Espionage and Trade-Secret Offenses ↗
U.S. Department of Justice · Published May 9, 2022 · Retrieved Aug 23, 2026
Original sentencing summary; the prison sentence was later vacated and is not presented as the final term.
- S2 procedural record court record
United States v. You, 74 F.4th 378 ↗
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Published Jul 11, 2023 · Retrieved Aug 23, 2026
Published opinion affirming every conviction, vacating the sentence, and describing the access, copying, grant, and defense record.
- S3 adjudicative record court record
United States v. Xiaorong You, Memorandum Opinion and Order on Intended Loss ↗
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee via GovInfo · Published Sep 11, 2024 · Retrieved Aug 23, 2026
Post-remand ruling estimating intended loss at $30.45 million before resentencing.
12 / Reference
Cite this dossier
Use the permanent URL and review date below so readers can identify the version of the public-source record you consulted.
ChinaSteals. “A trusted coatings chemist copied seven companies' BPA-free formulas for a China venture.” CS-004. Published Aug 23, 2026; last reviewed Aug 25, 2026. https://chinasteals.com/cases/xiaorong-you-can-coatings/