Former Google software engineer Linwei Ding has been sentenced to nearly one year in federal prison after being convicted of stealing confidential information connected to Google’s artificial intelligence infrastructure. The sentencing took place in federal court in San Francisco and follows a high profile case involving allegations that proprietary AI technology was taken from Google and transferred for the benefit of Chinese companies.
US District Judge Vince Chhabria sentenced Ding to 12 months minus one day in prison. The sentence also includes two years of supervised release after his imprisonment. In addition, Ding was ordered to pay more than $189,000 in restitution and a $25,000 fine. The judge said the punishment reflected the seriousness of the conduct involved in taking Google’s proprietary information.
Ding, who is also known as Leon Ding, previously worked as a software engineer at Google. He joined the company in 2019 and had access to confidential information connected to Google’s computing infrastructure. Prosecutors said his work gave him access to sensitive details involving systems used to support the company’s artificial intelligence development.
According to evidence presented during the trial, Ding transferred more than 500 confidential files from Google’s internal network to a personal Google Cloud account over a period of about one year. Prosecutors said the documents contained information related to Google’s hardware infrastructure and software used in data centres that support the training of large AI models.
The information reportedly included details concerning Google’s artificial intelligence computing systems, including infrastructure associated with Tensor Processing Units and graphics processing systems. Google’s custom AI hardware is an important part of the company’s efforts to develop and train large artificial intelligence models.
Prosecutors argued that the stolen information could provide significant advantages to companies attempting to develop comparable AI computing infrastructure. They also presented evidence about Ding’s connections with technology companies in China. According to the prosecution, he had discussions involving Chinese companies while he was employed at Google.
However, the legal outcome of the case has become more complicated since the original jury verdict. In January 2026, a federal jury convicted Ding on seven counts of economic espionage and seven counts of theft of trade secrets. The case followed an 11 day trial in San Francisco. The US Department of Justice said at the time that the stolen information involved thousands of pages of confidential material related to Google’s AI technology.
In August 2026, Judge Chhabria partially overturned the conviction. The judge determined that the evidence was insufficient to support the seven economic espionage convictions because the prosecution had not established the required element that Ding intended or knew that his actions would benefit the Chinese government.
The judge nevertheless allowed the trade secret theft convictions to stand. This distinction is important because economic espionage and trade secret theft have different legal requirements under US federal law. The court's decision means that Ding's final sentence is based on the remaining trade secret convictions rather than the economic espionage convictions that were set aside.
The case has attracted attention because of the growing strategic importance of artificial intelligence technology. AI chips, computing infrastructure and data centre technology have become major areas of competition between technology companies and countries. Advanced computing systems are required to train and operate increasingly sophisticated AI models, making related technical information commercially valuable.
Google has invested heavily in its own AI hardware, including Tensor Processing Units. These specialised processors are designed to accelerate machine learning workloads and form part of Google's broader AI computing infrastructure. Information concerning their design, deployment and supporting systems can therefore represent significant intellectual property for the company.
The case also highlights the importance of insider security at technology companies. Employees with access to highly confidential information can potentially transfer sensitive material outside corporate systems. Companies operating in areas such as AI, semiconductor technology and cloud computing therefore face growing challenges in protecting proprietary information.
According to prosecutors, Ding moved confidential Google files to a personal cloud account rather than keeping the information within authorised company systems. The prosecution used these transfers as evidence in the case. The jury ultimately found him guilty of trade secret theft, although the judge later concluded that the evidence did not meet the higher requirement for the economic espionage charges.
Ding came to the United States in 2010 to pursue a master's degree. He later worked for several Silicon Valley technology companies before joining Google. He became a lawful permanent resident of the United States in 2021. His employment history and technical background became part of the public record during the proceedings.
The sentencing also demonstrates that criminal cases involving technology secrets can involve multiple stages, from investigation and indictment to trial, sentencing and post-verdict legal review. A jury verdict does not necessarily represent the final legal position when a judge later reviews individual convictions.
For Google and other technology companies, the case serves as a reminder of the importance of protecting confidential information related to AI infrastructure. As competition increases in areas such as AI chips, cloud computing and large language models, proprietary technical information is becoming increasingly valuable.
The case also carries wider implications for the technology sector because governments are paying greater attention to the movement of advanced technology and intellectual property across international borders. The United States has introduced a range of measures aimed at protecting sensitive technologies and limiting the transfer of certain advanced computing capabilities.
Ding’s case, however, should be understood specifically through the findings of the court. While he remains convicted of trade secret theft, the economic espionage convictions were set aside because the judge found insufficient evidence for the required connection to the Chinese government. This distinction should be maintained when reporting the case.
The final sentence of 12 months minus one day, together with two years of supervised release, restitution exceeding $189,000 and a $25,000 fine, concludes the current sentencing phase of the case. The prosecution's allegations concerning the use of stolen information and Ding's connections with Chinese companies remain part of the case history, while the court's final findings determine which criminal convictions remain valid.