Caught Up in TSMC Leak Case: What Will Be Intel's Next Move？
By Liao Ming-hui, United Daily News Opinion, November 27, 2025
The Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC) has finally taken action, formally filing a lawsuit against former Senior Vice President Lo Wei-jen, accusing him of breaching his employment contract, violating the non-compete agreement, and infringing upon the Trade Secrets Act.
TSMC alleges that Lo, before leaving the company, continued requesting the R&D division to hold meetings and provide information in order to understand the latest developments in advanced process technologies. During his exit interview, he informed the general counsel that he would move into academia, but did not disclose that he would instead join Intel as an Executive Vice President (EVP). TSMC therefore believes there is a high likelihood that he may use or disclose trade secrets, and has filed a lawsuit with the Intellectual Property and Commercial Court.
The Ministry of Economic Affairs has also stated that it respects the legal action and emphasized that prosecutors have already begun an investigation to determine whether the case involves violations of the National Security Act relating to the acquisition of trade secrets tied to the nation’s core critical technologies.
However, the “Executive Vice President” title mentioned by TSMC does not currently appear on Intel’s publicly available organizational chart. For instance, according to Intel’s senior leadership restructuring announced on September 8, there are four EVPs, respectively responsible for the Data Center business, Finance, Legal Affairs, and—most critically—“Technology and Operations / Foundry,” held by Naga Chandrasekaran, who is specifically described as overseeing an integrated framework of technology development, manufacturing, and foundry services. If TSMC’s reference to an “EVP” is accurate, then the most reasonable assumption is that Lo was being placed in an EVP role related to foundry operations and technology, yet Intel’s official website has not shown any personnel change of this nature. This has led to outside interpretations suggesting that Intel might be purposely leaving “flexible space” to later determine Lo’s official title and scope of authority depending on how Taiwan’s judiciary and public opinion evolve.
Because of this ambiguity, Intel faces three layers of risk in this case. The first is legal risk: if a Taiwan court rules that Lo violated his non-compete obligations and the Trade Secrets Act, then Intel could be viewed as having “known or should have known” while still deciding to hire him, opening itself to potential civil liability or even criminal inquiry.
The second is reputational risk: Intel CEO Lip-Bu Tan recently reiterated the company’s respect for intellectual property. If a newly hired senior executive becomes entangled in allegations of trade secret misappropriation, then Tan's credibility could be significantly undermined.
The third is geopolitical risk: within the U.S. government’s ongoing efforts to restructure the semiconductor supply chain and prioritize “security and trust,” any perception that Intel condones poaching key technological talent from an allied partner—and potentially exploiting its trade secrets—would weaken the company’s claim of being a “trusted partner.”
For these reasons, Intel’s rational course of action may be to maintain distance from Lo for now, and it cannot be ruled out that Intel might choose to sever ties entirely should legal pressure intensify.
For TSMC, taking concrete legal action sends a clear signal to employees, customers, and shareholders that it has “zero tolerance” for the compromising of trade secrets, and prevents the dangerous misconception that senior executives can “defect with weapons in hand.”
At the same time, TSMC must also reflect on why a key figure who possessed extensive knowledge of advanced technologies and maintained a vast international network could plan his retirement and next steps without internal oversight and risk-management mechanisms activating sooner. This issue goes beyond personnel judgment; it concerns whether TSMC, under increasing geopolitical competition, can extend its hallmark “discipline, culture, and governance” from factory operations to a broader strategic approach to talent management.
TSMC’s lawsuit against Lo is not only an effort to hold an individual accountable but also a warning signal to the entire industry. What truly matters now is how Intel chooses its next step, and whether Taiwan can protect the rule of law, fair competition, and its own geopolitical leverage in this intensifying cross-border contest over trade secrets.
The author is assistant researcher at the Chung-Hua Institution for Economic Research.