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.
Rocket Companies Subsidiary Hit with $175 Million Trade Secret Verdict
Retrial produces substantial award in decade-old dispute over home valuation technology
A San Antonio jury found that Rocket Companies subsidiary Rocket Close stole trade secrets from real estate data platform HouseCanary and awarded $175 million in damages, Reuters reported. The verdict followed a retrial in a case that has now spanned a decade.
The dispute centers on allegations that Rocket Close — formerly known as Amrock, a title insurance services company — misappropriated HouseCanary's proprietary technology for valuing home prices. A Texas appeals court had previously overturned an earlier $700 million verdict against Amrock in the case, leading to the retrial.
Rocket Close called the award "disappointing" but noted the reduction from the original verdict as evidence that HouseCanary's claims had been inflated, and said it was confident the verdict would again be overturned on appeal. HouseCanary's counsel expressed gratitude that a jury had once more found the company's trade secrets were stolen and misused.
What this means: The case illustrates that a reversed verdict does not end trade secret exposure — defendants who prevail on appeal may face retrial and a second damages award. The significant reduction from $700 million to $175 million also reflects how damages methodologies remain contested well after liability is established.
Apple Seeks Preliminary Injunction Against Oppo Over Alleged Sensor Trade Secret Theft
Court skeptical of trade secret definitions as Apple presses for broad relief
Apple asked a federal judge in San Jose for injunctive relief against Oppo and its Palo Alto-based research arm InnoPeak Technology, Courthouse News reported, following allegations that former Apple Watch engineer Chen Shi gave confidential information on health and thermal sensors to the Chinese smartphone manufacturer.
Apple filed suit in August 2025 against Shi and Oppo, alleging that after Shi joined InnoPeak, he transmitted information from slide presentations and text messages regarding Apple's sensor technology to Oppo personnel. At a multi-hour hearing last month before U.S. District Judge Eumi Lee, Apple counsel argued that its irreparable harm was clear because "the trade secrets are already out there." Apple's proposed injunction would require Oppo to identify and quarantine employees exposed to Apple's information, wipe any developments derived from that information, and audit its data systems.
Oppo responded that a forensic investigation — conducted after Apple alerted the company — found no Apple documents in its possession, and that any health or thermal sensor products it is developing are entirely its own. Oppo's counsel argued that Apple's definitions of the asserted trade secrets — including terms like "thermal sensors" and "product roadmaps of health sensors" — were too broad to support an injunction and would leave Oppo unable to determine whether it was in contempt or to compete in the market.
Judge Lee signaled concern about the breadth of Apple's definitions, stating from the bench: "I am having trouble understanding the scope and breadth of the trade secrets." She did not indicate her ruling before closing the courtroom for a third closed session.
What this means: The hearing reflects a recurring problem in trade secret injunction practice: plaintiffs seeking emergency relief must define the protected information with sufficient precision for the court to craft a workable order. Overbroad definitions risk sinking even well-founded claims for injunctive relief.
Adidas Sues Sneaker Website, Alleging Extortion and Trade Secret Theft
Leaked designs and a threatening email form the basis of claims against Sole Retriever
Adidas filed suit last month in federal court in the District of Oregon against sneaker information website Sole Retriever and its founder, 28-year-old Harris Monoson of New York, alleging misappropriation of trade secrets and extortion, according to KOIN-TV.
According to the complaint, Sole Retriever conspired with five unidentified individuals — some of whom may include unauthorized Adidas employees — to obtain proprietary information including computer-aided designs, sneaker photographs, collaborations, release dates, and pricing. The site then used that access to press Adidas for preferential treatment.
In an August 2025 email, Monoson told a group of Adidas employees it was his "last attempt" to have the company "make good" on its relationship with Sole Retriever, and stated that he had access to the full Anthony Edwards 2 lineup and would "not hold back on posting" if Sole Retriever did not receive what he believed it was owed. Two days later, the site shared images of the AE2 sneaker to its social media accounts. Adidas informed Sole Retriever the following day that the information had been obtained unlawfully and demanded its return or destruction. Sole Retriever subsequently posted additional leaked designs, including the Anthony Edwards 3 and D.O.N. Issue 8.
Adidas is seeking a jury trial. Monoson and Sole Retriever did not respond to requests for comment.
What this means: The case is an example of trade secret misappropriation arising not from a departing employee, but from an outside party with insider access. When third parties obtain and threaten to publish proprietary product information, they can face both a trade secret problem and a potential extortion claim.
U.S. Strips Citizenship from Couple Convicted of Trade Secret Theft
DOJ uses denaturalization as enforcement tool in technology theft cases
The Trump administration secured the revocation of U.S. citizenship from Yu Zhou and Li Chen, a married California couple who emigrated from China and pleaded guilty in 2020 to conspiracy to steal trade secrets and wire fraud, Reuters reported.
U.S. District Judge James Simmons in San Diego granted the Justice Department's request, finding that Zhou and Chen had committed "crimes involving moral turpitude" during a period when they were legally required to demonstrate good moral character as part of their naturalization process. Federal law permits the Justice Department to revoke citizenship obtained by concealing or misrepresenting material facts.
Zhou and Chen had worked as researchers at Nationwide Children's Hospital in Columbus, Ohio, arriving in the United States on H-1B visas in 2007 and 2008 before becoming citizens nine years later. They admitted to conspiring to steal trade secrets related to pediatric medical treatment for financial gain.
What this means: Trade secret cases increasingly carry consequences that extend well beyond civil liability or criminal fines. For naturalized citizens, a guilty plea to trade secret charges could provide grounds for loss of citizenship. Companies and counsel confronting suspected misappropriation should account for this expanded enforcement environment when evaluating risk.
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.