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.
Heartflow Sues Rival Cleerly Over AI Cardiology Technology
Trade secret and patent claims follow consultant's alleged defection
Medical technology company Heartflow filed suit in the Eastern District of Texas against competitor Cleerly, alleging that Cleerly's AI-powered cardiac imaging products were developed using trade secrets.
The complaint centers on James Min, who served as a Heartflow consultant from 2012 to 2017. According to the filing, Min secretly founded Cleerly in 2017 while still working for Heartflow, using technology copied from the company to build a competing AI-based heart disease diagnostic tool.
According to the complaint, two of Cleerly’s products fall within the field defined in Min’s consulting agreement with Heartflow. While he was a Heartflow consultant, the company was well underway with active research, development, and inventions related to AI analysis of coronary anatomy, plaque, and lesion-specific ischemia. Heartflow alleges Min “conceived of these products, or the inventions underlying them, in connection with his services to Heartflow.”
Heartflow, which went public on Nasdaq last year at a valuation of $2.27 billion, says its platform — developed over more than a decade — enables personalized 3D cardiac modeling from a single specialized scan. Cleerly's CEO Min denied the allegations, which also include patent infringement, stating that the company's work is grounded in "landmark clinical science" it has independently published on cardiovascular disease. Heartflow is seeking an unspecified amount of monetary damages.
What this means: The case raises a recurring issue in technology disputes: the consultant who transitions from advisor to founder. When a company engages outside consultants with access to proprietary systems and methods, it assumes the risk that those individuals may later build on — or in a plaintiff's framing, misappropriate — what they encountered. Companies that rely on consultants for sensitive development work should consider whether their agreements and confidentiality protections are calibrated to that risk.
Aviation Engineer Pleads Guilty After Customs Agents Find Stolen Trade Secrets
Airport inspection surfaces confidential documents; employer confirms no authorization
A Tulsa, Oklahoma man with access to sensitive aviation data pleaded guilty on April 1 to making a false statement to federal agents after Customs and Border Protection officers discovered proprietary documents on his personal devices at a Dallas airport.
Junjie Zhang, 57, who was a senior material and process engineer at a Wichita, Kansas aviation company, was stopped in 2019 as he attempted to board a flight to China. When agents asked whether he carried any work-related materials, he reportedly said no. A search of his devices uncovered documents marked "Proprietary" and "Confidential," including graphs and blueprints connected to his employer's aviation work. Zhang then changed his account, claiming his employer had authorized him to have the files. His employer confirmed he had no such authorization.
The investigation had begun a year earlier, in 2018, after Zhang's employer reported him to the FBI following suspicious behavior during a work trip to China. Investigators estimated the proprietary data found on his devices was worth more than $100,000. Zhang is scheduled to be sentenced on July 23.
What this means: The case illustrates how border inspections have become an enforcement mechanism in trade secret investigations. When employees carry confidential materials on personal devices across international borders, they expose themselves to scrutiny outside the ordinary employment context — and false statements to federal agents carry independent criminal liability. For companies operating in sectors with foreign counterintelligence concerns, the Zhang matter reinforces the importance of clear device policies, authorization documentation, and employee training on data handling obligations.
Assurant Sues Former Sales Executive and Warranty Rival Over Alleged Data Theft
Departing executive accused of emailing files, wiping devices, and joining direct competitor
Assurant, Inc. and two of its affiliates filed suit on April 28 in the Southern District of Texas against Brent Schouten, a former district manager in Assurant's dealer services division, and his new employer, iA American Warranty Group — a direct competitor in the auto finance and insurance market.
According to the complaint, Schouten told Assurant he was retiring, but Assurant alleges he was actually moving to iA in an executive leadership role. In the weeks before and on his final day of employment, the filing claims, Schouten emailed himself a set of sensitive materials — financial forecasts, pricing model spreadsheets, a "Go-To-Market Strategy" document, customer lists and contact information, and what the complaint describes as "system access credentials." He also, Assurant alleges, used an unauthorized USB device on his company laptop. After being told in writing to preserve everything, Schouten allegedly wiped his email and OneDrive accounts before returning the device.
Adding a contractual dimension to the dispute: Schouten and iA had signed an agreement acknowledging that his Assurant covenants were "valid" and making compliance a condition of his employment. Once Assurant raised its concerns, iA reversed course — characterizing the noncompetition covenant as "unenforceable" and Assurant's allegations as "unfounded."
Assurant is seeking a one-year restraint on Schouten's role, return of all confidential materials, forensic access to devices and accounts on both sides, and damages under the Texas Uniform Trade Secrets Act, the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act, and theories of tortious interference and breach of contract. The allegations have not been tested in court, and Schouten and iA have not yet filed a response.
What this means: The case presents two distinct issues worth tracking. First, the allegation that an executive signed an agreement acknowledging his post-employment obligations and then — at the direction or with the acquiescence of his new employer — disavowed them almost immediately. That sequence, if proven, can support claims against both the individual and the incoming employer. Second, the alleged destruction of data after a written litigation hold demand, if established, is the kind of conduct that can carry consequences well beyond the underlying trade secret claims.