⚖ Oral Arguments, with Context

The Seventh Circuit hears oral argument in Motorola Solutions versus John J. Tharp Jr., a case about criminal restitution and its relationship to a prior civil judgment. The case is captioned against Judge Tharp because Motorola is petitioning for a writ of mandamus under the Crime Victims' Rights Act, an order directed at the district judge himself; a crime victim cannot directly appeal a sentence, and Hytera Communications is the real party in interest defending the ruling. Motorola won a massive civil verdict against Hytera for trade-secret theft, including both compensatory and punitive damages, and the government then secured a criminal conviction for conspiracy to steal trade secrets. At sentencing, the district judge ordered zero dollars in restitution to Motorola, reasoning that payments Hytera had already made on the civil judgment fully offset any criminal restitution owed. Motorola now challenges that ruling, with the government supporting its position. They argue that punitive damages cannot be credited against restitution for the same loss. They also contend the civil judgment covered only part of the theft period: Motorola says the civil award reaches only 2016 to 2019, while the indictment dates the conspiracy to the late two thousands. And they say the judge understated the loss. Hytera counters that Motorola has been made whole and that the district court acted within its discretion. The core legal issue is how the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act interacts with prior civil recoveries, particularly when those recoveries include punitive damages and attorney fees.

Motorola Solutions, Inc. v. John J. Tharp, Jr. (No. 26-1541) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, argued July 21, 2026.