FINANCE

US Supreme Court rejects Tata challenge to $168 million award in trade secrets case

By Blake Brittain

WASHINGTON, June 15 (Reuters) – The U.S. Supreme Court turned away on Monday a bid by India-based Tata Consultancy Services to ‌overturn a $168 million award won against it by DXC Technology for allegedly ‌stealing trade secrets related to life-insurance software.

Tata had appealed after a lower court upheld a ​judge’s decision to set the award at $56 million in compensatory damages and $112 million in punitive damages to Ashburn, Virginia-based DXC. Tata had argued that the damages award could not be justified under U.S. law regarding trade secrets.

DXC’s predecessor Computer Sciences Corp, ‌or CSC, licensed its software ⁠to insurance company Transamerica in the 1990s. Its 2019 lawsuit, filed in Dallas federal court, said that Tata hired 2,200 ⁠Transamerica employees and used their access to CSC’s software and knowledge of its proprietary information to build a competing life-insurance platform.

Tata denied the allegations, told the court ​that the ​information at issue was not secret and ​argued that it accessed the ‌software legally.

A jury in 2023 decided in an advisory verdict – a nonbinding decision given to a judge – that Tata should pay DXC $210 million for willfully stealing its trade secrets. U.S. District Judge Brantley Starr reduced the proposed damages award to $168 million in 2024. The New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ‌upheld Starr’s decision in 2025.

U.S. law concerning trade ​secrets allows for monetary damages to address ​both a plaintiff’s losses from the ​theft of trade secrets and a defendant’s “unjust enrichment” from it. ‌The award to DXC was based ​entirely on unjust ​enrichment.

Tata told the Supreme Court in a filing that DXC should not have won unjust enrichment damages without proving it suffered actual losses as ​well. Tata also argued ‌that the punitive damages award was excessive.

DXC responded that “nothing about the ​court of appeals’ fact-bound application of settled law warrants further review.”

(Reporting ​by Blake Brittain; Editing by Will Dunham)


Source link