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


A view of the U.S. Supreme Court building in Washington, D.C., U.S., June 8, 2026. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst

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)

Follow us on our official WhatsApp channel for breaking news alerts and key updates!

Others Also Read