The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday turned away an attempt by Tata Consultancy Services to overturn a $168 million judgment in favor of DXC Technology in a trade secrets dispute tied to life-insurance software.
The litigation traces back to a 2019 lawsuit filed by DXC's predecessor, Computer Sciences Corp. (CSC), in federal court in Dallas. CSC said it had licensed its software to Transamerica in the 1990s and later accused Tata of hiring roughly 2,200 Transamerica employees and using their access and knowledge of CSC's proprietary software to construct a rival life-insurance platform.
Tata denied the allegations throughout the litigation, telling the courts that the information at issue was not secret and that any access to the software had been lawful. A jury in 2023 returned an advisory verdict - a nonbinding finding provided to a judge - that Tata had willfully misappropriated DXC's trade secrets and should pay $210 million.
U.S. District Judge Brantley Starr subsequently reduced the amount to $168 million in 2024, splitting the award into $56 million in compensatory damages and $112 million in punitive damages. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, sitting in New Orleans, reviewed that reduction and affirmed the district court's calculation in 2025.
Under U.S. trade secrets law, courts may order damages that address both a plaintiff's actual losses and a defendant's unjust enrichment from wrongdoing. In this case, the award granted to DXC was grounded entirely on unjust enrichment rather than payments tied to provable losses by the plaintiff.
In filings to the Supreme Court, Tata argued that an unjust enrichment award should not stand without a showing that the plaintiff also suffered actual losses. Tata also urged that the size of the punitive damages was excessive. DXC opposed further review, telling the high court that the appeals court applied established law to the facts and that the matter did not warrant additional examination.
With the Supreme Court's refusal to hear the appeal, the lower courts' rulings remain in place, leaving the $168 million award intact as the final judgment in the case unless other procedural options are pursued that are not referenced in the filings before the high court.
Legal and market context
The decision leaves intact a significant judgment tied to alleged misappropriation of proprietary technology used in the life-insurance sector. The litigation involved corporate licensing arrangements dating to the 1990s, a mass hiring event involving Transamerica personnel, and multiple levels of judicial scrutiny including jury findings, a district court adjustment of damages, and an appeals court affirmation prior to the Supreme Court's denial of review.