U.S. Needs New Approach to Commercial Counterintelligence
The U.S. is in the crosshairs of foreign competitors and intelligence services seeking to obtain valuable knowledge and other intellectual property,…
January 11, 2018 at 11:18 AM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
The U.S. is in the crosshairs of foreign competitors and intelligence services seeking to obtain valuable knowledge and other intellectual property, according to a new report from the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF), a think tank for science and technology policy.
“Government counterintelligence outreach to the commercial sector is long overdue for reform. It relies too heavily on investigations following up after security breaches rather than proactively recognizing and responding to threat indicators,” said former FBI counterintelligence analyst Darren Tromblay, the report's author.
To counter this threat, ITIF recommends that the Trump administration establish a new public-private partnership to better coordinate commercial counterintelligence efforts with industry.
“By including private industry as a formal stakeholder, counterintelligence efforts can more effectively protect key U.S. intellectual and technology assets from being taken by adversaries and competitors,” said Tromblay. “It will encourage companies to better incorporate counterintelligence concerns into their due-diligence process, which will make them more effective partners in thwarting foreign threats.”
ITIF recommends a new, more proactive approach to coordinating counterintelligence outreach between the government and commercial sector. The report calls on the Trump administration to establish an interagency hub, structured as a public-private partnership, to consolidate inconsistent and partly redundant counterintelligence outreach programs that are currently operated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Commerce and the Department of Defense.
This new entity should be charged with translating sensitive concerns identified by the U.S. intelligence community and other information collectors, into publicly distributable products. In addition, it should enlist the active participation of the private-sector entities at risk, since they are the first line of defense and best postured to identify anomalies. And it should assist industries trying to navigate legal, but unscrupulous activities.
“Existing counterintelligence arrangements between government and industry have long been inconsistent and redundant–and even if they were running like a Swiss watch, the underlying premise itself is outdated,” explained Tromblay. “The U.S. government is no longer the driver of innovation; it's an adopter and adapter of knowledge and capabilities developed outside the public sector.”
So now, the tables have turned, as there is less financial incentive for the private sector to collaborate with government, and there's more incentive for the government to collaborate with the private sector. Industry is in the crosshairs of foreign actors. It's in a position not just to benefit from information the government can offer, but also to provide key insights that government can act on. And, a public-private partnership akin to the National Endowment for Democracy could facilitate that, per Tromblay.
According to ITIF president Rob Atkinson, more and more nations seek competitive advantage in innovation-based industries. Gaining IP without paying for it is a shortcut for many nations, and given that the U.S. has the world's leading innovation companies, stealing U.S. IP is a prime focus for some nations.
There are two ways to counter this threat, he told us, defense and offense.
“Defense involves a much more robust commercial counterintelligence effort by the U.S. government, including increased funding for the FBI, and a closer partnership between USG and industry,” he explained. “Offense involves sending a much clearer and forceful message that the U.S. will no longer stand for wanton theft of U.S. IP and that nations that persist in this, like China, will be punished.”
Amanda G. Ciccatelli is a Freelance Journalist for Corporate Counsel and InsideCounsel, where she covers intellectual property, legal technology, patent litigation, cybersecurity, innovation and more.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllIn-House Lawyers Are Focused on Employment and Cybersecurity Disputes, But Looking Out for Conflict Over AI
As AI-Generated Fraud Rises, Financial Companies Face a Long Cybersecurity Battle
AI Adoption, Data Center Building Boom Opening More Doors for Cybercriminals, Many of Them Teenagers
Trending Stories
- 1St. Jude Labs Sued for $14.3M for Allegedly Falling Short of Purchase Expectations
- 2'Ridiculously Busy': Several Law Firms Position Themselves as Go-To Experts on Trump’s Executive Orders
- 3States Reach New $7.4B Opioid Deal With Purdue After SCOTUS Ruling
- 4$975,000 Settlement Reached After Fall on Sidewalk
- 5'Where Were the Lawyers?' Judge Blocks Trump's Birthright Citizenship Order
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250