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 Court Dismisses xAI’s Trade Secret Suit Against OpenAI — For Now
Pleading standards under scrutiny in AI rivalry
A federal judge dismissed a trade secret lawsuit brought by Elon Musk’s xAI against OpenAI, holding that the complaint failed adequately to plead the existence and misappropriation of protectable trade secrets. The court granted leave to amend, allowing xAI an opportunity to refile.
The dispute arises in the context of intense competition for AI talent and technology. According to reporting on the ruling, the judge concluded that xAI did not allege “any facts indicating OpenAI induced xAI's former employees to steal xAI's trade secrets or that these former xAI employees used any stolen trade secrets once employed by OpenAI.”
Although the dismissal was without prejudice, the ruling reinforces a recurring theme in trade secret litigation: plaintiffs must do more than allege aggressive hiring or competitive harm. They must define the trade secrets at issue with enough specificity to make the claim plausible at the outset.
What this means: In high-profile AI disputes, courts are unlikely to relax traditional pleading standards. Companies pursuing trade secret claims — particularly in fast-moving technology sectors — should expect early scrutiny of trade secret identification and misappropriation theories. Complaints built on inference rather than concrete factual allegations risk early dismissal.
Three Silicon Valley Engineers Indicted for Alleged Trade Secret Theft
Criminal enforcement expands beyond civil litigation
Federal prosecutors unsealed indictments against three Silicon Valley engineers accused of stealing trade secrets from Google and other technology companies.
The charges allege theft of proprietary information relating to advanced technologies, with some allegations involving efforts to benefit foreign entities, including Iran. The indictment alleges the defendants tried to conceal their actions by submitting false signed affidavits and concealing how the data was taken, including taking photos of computer screens.
The indictment underscore the government’s continued willingness to pursue criminal charges in cases involving alleged theft of sensitive technological information.
What to watch: Trade secret disputes increasingly carry parallel civil and criminal risk. Companies confronting suspected misappropriation must evaluate not only civil remedies but also potential engagement with law enforcement.
Seventh Circuit Tightens Proof Requirements for Customer and Business Information
Secrecy measures and economic value must be demonstrated — not assumed
In a published opinion, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed dismissal of trade secret claims arising from a commercial dispute involving alleged misappropriation of customer-related and business information.
The plaintiff asserted that the defendant improperly used materials such as customer lists, pricing information, and internal business data. The Seventh Circuit held that the plaintiff failed to meet its burden under the Defend Trade Secrets Act and parallel state law because it did not adequately establish that the information qualified as a trade secret.
The court emphasized that to qualify as a trade secret, information must derive independent economic value from not being generally known and must not readily be ascertainable. The appeals ruling cited the district court, which explained, “[d]escribing the software functions without disclosing the underlying methods is like saying someone stole your top secret apple pie recipe, but never identifying the secret recipe itself.”
What this means: Plaintiffs must present disciplined proof of both secrecy measures and secrecy-driven economic value. Without that evidentiary foundation, claims are vulnerable at summary judgment.
Fifth Circuit Affirms District Court’s Rejection of $75 Million Trade Secret Damages Award
Failure to apportion leaves plaintiff with injunction but no monetary recovery
In a published opinion, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed a district court’s decision to set aside a $75 million trade secret damages award after concluding that the plaintiff failed to properly apportion damages to the alleged trade secrets.
The jury had awarded approximately $75 million based on claims that the defendant misappropriated proprietary business information. Following the verdict, however, the district court determined that the plaintiff’s damages theory improperly attributed the defendant’s broader commercial success to the asserted trade secrets without separating their specific economic contribution.
On appeal, the Fifth Circuit agreed. The court emphasized that trade secret damages must reflect the value of the protected information itself — not the entire value of a product or business that may incorporate both protectable and non-protectable elements.
The opinion makes clear that where revenue streams are driven by multiple inputs, the plaintiff bears the burden of disentangling the portion attributable to the trade secret. A damages model that assumes misappropriation equals total revenue, without analytical separation, cannot stand.
Because the plaintiff failed to present a legally sufficient basis to isolate the incremental value of the trade secrets, the district court properly rejected the monetary award. The Fifth Circuit affirmed that ruling, leaving the plaintiff with injunctive relief but no damages recovery.
What this means: The decision reinforces a critical appellate theme: precision in damages is as important as precision in defining the trade secret itself. Even where liability is established, courts will require a disciplined methodology that isolates the economic value of the protected information.
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.