In my post from yesterday, I referred to a Tata Consultancy Services' trade secrets case where Tata is trying to get the unjust enrichment damages award stricken from its case based on an argument that, under the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA), there are no monetary damages available beyond actual loss. Tata's argument relies on the TriZetto v. Syntel case from the 2nd Circuit, featured in the quote below.  The 2nd Circuit threw out a jury damages award that neared $285 million and remanded the case for a trial on damages. The damages trial concluded with a $70 million lost profit judgment for TriZetto, a sizable judgment but a substantial reduction from the first jury verdict. At this juncture, whether unjust enrichment damages in the form of avoided costs are available may depend on the jurisdiction where the case was filed, with the 2nd Circuit limiting this form of damages and the Seventh and Fifth Circuits still permitting this form of damages.

Subscribe to Farella Insights by topic and author here.

The damages retrial happened after the Second Circuit in 2023 upheld Syntel's liability for trade secret misappropriation and copyright infringement but threw out the bulk of TriZetto's original damages award, ruling that the 2016 Defend Trade Secrets Act does not allow recovery based on development costs a defendant supposedly avoided through trade secret theft.

www.law360.com/...