Trade secret litigation often turns on fast-moving disputes over information, competition, and control. Each month, we highlight notable rulings, verdicts, and enforcement actions shaping trade secret risk and litigation outcomes.
Federal Trade Secret Filings Hit an All-Time High in 2025
Volume up, cases harder to resolve
A new report from Lex Machina shows that federal trade secret litigation reached a record high in 2025, underscoring the growing role of trade secret claims in competitive business disputes.
According to the 2026 Trade Secret Litigation Report, federal courts saw over 1,500 trade secret cases filed in 2025, the highest total recorded over the past decade. The Central District of California led all venues, with 100 newly filed cases, reflecting the continued concentration of trade secret disputes in technology-driven markets.
The report also highlights notable shifts in claim composition. While claims under the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) continue to appear in more than 80 percent of federal trade secret cases, the past two years have seen increased reliance on state-law-only trade secret claims filed in federal court.
Despite the surge in filings, settlement rates lag behind other categories of civil litigation. Approximately 65 percent of trade secret cases resolved through likely settlement between 2023 and 2025. Cases that reached trial during that period took a median of 1,124 days, and juries awarded more than $716 million in actual damages and $510 million in punitive damages.
What this means: Trade secret disputes are becoming more frequent, more protracted, and more expensive. Early case assessment, venue strategy, and realistic settlement expectations are increasingly critical in a landscape where cases tend to last longer and resolve less often than other civil matters.
Jury Convicts Former Google Engineer of Stealing AI Trade Secrets
Economic espionage charges sustained
A federal jury in San Francisco found former Google software engineer Linwei Ding guilty of stealing trade secrets related to Google’s artificial intelligence and supercomputing technology in a case involving alleged ties to China-based technology companies.
The jury convicted Ding on all 14 counts charged — seven counts of theft of trade secrets and seven counts of economic espionage — based on evidence that he copied and transferred 1,255 internal Google documents between May 2022 and May 2023. Prosecutors alleged that Ding acted while simultaneously working for, or founding, China-based technology companies.
Ding faces up to 10 years in prison and $250,000 in fines for each trade secret count, and up to 15 years in prison and $5 million in fines for each economic espionage count. The court ordered Ding released pending sentencing.
What to watch: The verdict highlights continued DOJ focus on trade secret theft involving sensitive technologies and national security concerns. Criminal enforcement remains a significant risk overlay in trade secret cases involving advanced technology and cross-border activity.
Delaware Court Awards Over $50 Million for Trade Secret Theft
Executives enjoined, punitive damages imposed
The Delaware Court of Chancery issued a sweeping ruling holding a former company founder and two departing executives liable for conspiring to steal trade secrets and launch a competing business.
Following a multi-day trial, the court found that the defendants copied tens of thousands of confidential files — including chemical formulas, customer data, and supplier information — and used them to establish a direct competitor. The court awarded approximately $900,000 in lost profits and $24.2 million in disgorgement, then imposed an equal amount in punitive damages, bringing the total judgment above $50 million, plus legal fees.
The court also enforced restrictive covenants, barring the founder from competing until October 2029 and restricting the other defendants from using the misappropriated information for one year.
What this means: The decision underscores the significant financial and injunctive exposure trade secret defendants face where courts find coordinated misconduct, weak exit controls, and deliberate efforts to conceal activity. Preventive controls around employee departures and data access remain critical risk-management tools.
Fifth Circuit Affirms $194 Million Trade Secret Award
Punitive damages upheld for willful misappropriation
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed a district court judgment awarding approximately $194 million to a DXC Technology subsidiary in a long-running trade secret misappropriation case against Tata Consultancy Services.
The court upheld findings that the defendant willfully and maliciously misappropriated trade secrets, including an award of more than $100 million in punitive damages. The court cited repeated misconduct, misrepresentations, and intentional disregard for the plaintiff’s rights.
What this means: Appellate courts continue to affirm substantial trade secret verdicts where trial courts make detailed findings of willful and malicious conduct. Punitive damages remain a significant driver of exposure in high-stakes trade secret litigation.
Federal Circuit Reinforces Requirement to Clearly Identify Trade Secrets
Summary judgment affirmed
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed summary judgment against a trade secret plaintiff that failed to adequately identify its alleged trade secrets under both federal and state law.
The court agreed that high-level descriptions, generalized categories, and voluminous exhibits were insufficient to allow a fact-finder to determine whether the asserted information qualified as a trade secret under the Defend Trade Secrets Act or Utah law. The court emphasized that even where state law does not impose a heightened particularity requirement, plaintiffs must still clearly define the trade secret at issue.
What to watch: Courts continue to scrutinize trade secret identification, and plaintiffs that cannot precisely define the information at issue – and explain why it derives independent economic value – risk losing at summary judgment.
For more information regarding Alto Litigation’s litigation practice, please contact one of Alto Litigation’s partners: Bahram Seyedin-Noor, Bryan Ketroser, Joshua Korr, or Kevin O’Brien.
****
Disclaimer: Materials on this website are for informational purposes only and do not constitute legal advice. Transmission of materials and information on this website is not intended to create, and their receipt does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Although you may send us email or call us, we cannot represent you until we have determined that doing so will not create a conflict of interests. Accordingly, if you choose to communicate with us in connection with a matter in which we do not already represent you, you should not send us confidential or sensitive information, because such communication will not be treated as privileged or confidential. We can only serve as your attorney if both you and we agree, in writing, that we will do so.
The materials on this website are not intended to constitute advertising or solicitation. However, portions of this website may be considered attorney advertising in some states.
Unless otherwise specified, the attorneys listed on this website are admitted to practice in the State of California.