Key facts
- The U.S. Supreme Court rejected Tata Consultancy Services' appeal to overturn a $168 million trade secrets award to DXC Technology.
- The award was for allegedly stealing trade secrets related to life-insurance software.
- The original award included $56 million in compensatory damages and $112 million in punitive damages.
- DXC Technology's lawsuit alleged Tata hired employees and used their access to proprietary software to build a competing platform.
- A jury initially recommended $210 million, which a judge reduced to $168 million.
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear an appeal from Tata Consultancy Services (TCS), effectively upholding a $168 million trade secrets award to DXC Technology. The case centers on allegations that TCS stole trade secrets related to life-insurance software.
TCS had appealed a lower court's decision, which affirmed a judge's award of $56 million in compensatory damages and $112 million in punitive damages. Tata argued that U.S. trade secret law did not justify such an award, particularly concerning unjust enrichment without proof of actual losses and the excessiveness of punitive damages.
The dispute originated from a 2019 lawsuit filed by DXC's predecessor, Computer Sciences Corp (CSC). The suit claimed that TCS hired 2,200 employees from Transamerica, a CSC software licensee, and used their knowledge of CSC's proprietary information to develop a competing life-insurance platform. TCS denied these allegations, asserting that the information was not secret and that its access to the software was legal.
In 2023, a jury issued an advisory verdict recommending $210 million for willful trade secret theft. U.S. District Judge Brantley Starr subsequently reduced this to $168 million in 2024, a decision that was upheld by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2025.
U.S. trade secret law permits damages for both the plaintiff's losses and the defendant's unjust enrichment. DXC's award was based on the latter. DXC had argued that the appellate court's decision was fact-based and did not warrant further Supreme Court review.