1 hour ago
1
The U.S. Supreme Court turned distant connected Monday (June 15, 2026) a bid by Tata Consultancy Services to overturn a $168 cardinal grant won against it by DXC Technology for allegedly stealing commercialized secrets related to life-insurance software.
Tata had appealed aft a little tribunal upheld a judge's determination to acceptable the grant astatine $56 cardinal successful compensatory damages and $112 million in punitive damages to Ashburn, Virginia-based DXC. Tata had argued that the damages grant could not beryllium justified nether U.S. instrumentality regarding commercialized secrets.
DXC's predecessor Computer Sciences Corp, oregon CSC, licensed its software to security institution Transamerica successful the 1990s. Its 2019 lawsuit, filed successful Dallas national court, said that Tata hired 2,200 Transamerica employees and utilized their entree to CSC's bundle and cognition of its proprietary accusation to physique a competing life-insurance platform.
Tata denied the allegations, told the tribunal that the accusation astatine contented was not concealed and argued that it accessed the bundle legally. A assemblage successful 2023 decided successful an advisory verdict — a nonbinding determination fixed to a justice — that Tata should wage DXC $210 cardinal for willfully stealing its commercialized secrets. U.S. District Judge Brantley Starr reduced the projected damages grant to $168 cardinal successful 2024. The New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Starr's determination successful 2025.
U.S. instrumentality concerning commercialized secrets allows for monetary damages to code some a plaintiff's losses from the theft of commercialized secrets and a defendant's "unjust enrichment" from it. The grant to DXC was based wholly on unjust enrichment.
Tata told the Supreme Court successful a filing that DXC should not person won unjust enrichment damages without proving it suffered existent losses arsenic well. Tata besides argued that the punitive damages grant was excessive.
DXC responded that "nothing astir the tribunal of appeals' fact-bound application of settled instrumentality warrants further review."
