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 Circuit Reverses District Judge for Excluding Unjust Enrichment Damages Theory in Versata v. Ford, Orders New Trial
Unjust enrichment available as measure of trade secret damages — not just the cost of a license
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that trade secret plaintiffs may seek unjust enrichment damages measured by a defendant's gains from misappropriated technology and ordered a new trial on trade secret damages in Versata Software's long-running case against Ford Motor Co. The court also reinstated $82.2 million of a $104.6 million jury verdict on the accompanying breach of contract claims.
The trade secret misappropriation claims arise from Versata's allegation that Ford began copying its automotive software rather than continue paying annual licensing fees. Versata had licensed the software to Ford from 1998 to 2015, enabling Ford's engineers and marketing teams to collaborate on vehicle design with real-time updates across global operations. A Detroit jury awarded Versata $82.2 million for breach of contract and $22.4 million for trade secret misappropriation in 2022. U.S. District Judge Matthew Leitman overturned both awards in 2023, finding that Versata had not presented sufficient evidence to allow jurors to calculate damages accurately. The Federal Circuit reinstated the contract damages, holding the jury had calculated them with "reasonable certainty," but ordered a new trial on trade secret damages — and in doing so, reaffirmed that unjust enrichment, measured by what the defendant gained from the stolen technology, is an available measure of recovery, even if the record also supports the plaintiff having an established royalty fee for the trade secrets at issue. The plaintiff has the right to elect either remedy.
Reporting on the decision noted that the ruling could expose Ford to up to $1 billion in additional damages at retrial.
What this means: The Federal Circuit's ruling upholds the statutory text of the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) by confirming that a plaintiff may elect unjust enrichment recovery even if the record otherwise supports a reasonable royalty. Where a defendant has profited from misappropriated technology, plaintiffs are not limited to seeking the value of a license they would have negotiated. The decision is a reminder that defendants must account not only for what the stolen information was worth to the plaintiff, but for what it may have been worth — or generated — in the defendant's hands.
Federal Circuit Throws Out $59 Million Verdict Against EOFlow on Limitations Grounds
Insulet's delay in filing suit bars recovery despite jury finding of misappropriation
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit overturned a $59 million verdict that medical device maker Insulet Corp. had won against Korean rival EOFlow Co. for misappropriating trade secrets related to its Omnipod insulin pump, holding that Insulet waited too long to bring its claim.
The court found that Insulet should have known of the alleged theft by 2019 — four years before it actually sued. The three-year statute of limitations for trade secret claims under the DTSA ran from that point, and the complaint, filed in 2023, was too late. In doing so, the Federal Circuit held that the statute of limitations may be triggered even if the plaintiff lacks all of the evidence that may be needed to prove misappropriation. So long as the plaintiff has enough circumstantial evidence to plead misappropriation, the statutory period is triggered.
What this means: This decision adds teeth to the DTSA’s statute of limitations. Companies that observe warning signs — a competitor's sudden entry into the market, the departure of employees with access to sensitive information, a new product that resembles their own — must assess whether they are on inquiry notice and act accordingly. Waiting too long to build a stronger merits case risks the claim’s viability altogether.
Texas Business Court Denies Texas Instruments' Bid to Sideline Former Executive
Preliminary injunction rejected one day after filing as trade secret dispute heads to full litigation
The Texas Business Court denied Texas Instruments' request for a preliminary injunction against former vice president Kannan Soundarapandian in a one-page order issued on May 21, 2026 — one day after Texas Instruments filed suit — allowing Soundarapandian to continue working at semiconductor competitor GlobalFoundries US Inc. while the trade secret case proceeds.
Texas Instruments' complaint, filed in Fort Worth, alleges that Soundarapandian cannot perform his new role at GlobalFoundries "without drawing on TI's confidential recipes, roadmaps, targets, and positive and negative know-how." The suit followed an abrupt resignation in which Soundarapandian declined to identify his new employer. Texas Instruments says it subsequently learned he had joined GlobalFoundries, which it contends plans to offer clients process power to manufacture semiconductor devices using the same proprietary technology Texas Instruments developed. Judge Jerry Bullard rejected the company's bid to pause that employment without extended explanation.
What this means: Obtaining preliminary injunctive relief in trade secret cases against departing executives is difficult, even where the underlying concerns may be well-founded. Courts require a plaintiff to demonstrate not only likelihood of success on the merits, but also a concrete threat of irreparable harm that cannot be adequately addressed through damages at the end of litigation. The court's swift refusal to pause Soundarapandian's employment does not determine how the underlying trade secret claims will be resolved — but it does mean Texas Instruments will need to develop its evidentiary record before it can expect a court to restrict where its former officer works.
Disney Awarded $1.6 Million in Attorney Fees After Court Finds Moana Claims Were Brought in Bad Faith
Forged confidentiality agreement and fabricated timeline draw sanctions for plaintiff and counsel alike
Senior U.S. District Judge Consuelo Marshall awarded Walt Disney Co. $1.6 million in attorney fees after finding that Buck Woodall, a former animator, had brought federal and California trade secret misappropriation claims in bad faith — supported by a forged confidentiality agreement and a false account of when he first saw the film "Moana."
The trade secret claims rested on Woodall's allegation that he had shared proprietary materials for a project called "Bucky the Surfer Boy" with Jenny Marchick — the stepsister of his brother's wife, who worked at Mandeville Films on the Disney studio lot in Burbank — and that Marchick had passed his materials to Disney Animation, which released "Moana" 13 years later. In support, Woodall attached to his 2020 complaint a purported 2003 confidentiality agreement bearing Marchick's signature. At trial, he admitted the document had actually been signed by a Hawaii model who had worked for him, that he had substituted Marchick's name, and that he had backdated it to October 22, 2003. The court found that the misrepresentations showed his "trade secrets claims were objectively specious and brought/maintained with subjective bad faith."
The fabrication was compounded by a false account of when Woodall first saw the film. To avoid a statute of limitations problem, he alleged he had not seen "Moana" until June or July 2017. The court found he had seen it in theaters in 2016 and on DVD by March 2017 at the latest, and that he had continued litigating "based on this falsity for over four years, until the court ultimately granted summary judgment in favor of defendants." A Los Angeles jury, after deliberating for three hours, found that Woodall had not proven Disney Animation had access to his "Bucky" materials at all. In a separate order, Marshall sanctioned Woodall's attorney, Gustavo Lage, $476,000 for failing to investigate the confidentiality agreement's authenticity in a timely manner and for continuing to press claims he knew were barred by the statute of limitations. To avoid double recovery, Disney agreed that Woodall's fee liability would be reduced by any amount recovered in sanctions from his lawyer.
What this means: The Moana case illustrates what courts characterize as "objectively specious" trade secret litigation — claims grounded not in disputed facts but in manufactured ones. Attorney fee awards under the Defend Trade Secrets Act are available where a claim is brought in bad faith, and this decision shows courts are prepared to use that tool when the record warrants it. The parallel sanctions against counsel reinforce that the obligation to investigate a claim's factual foundation does not end at filing.
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.