Ninth Circuit Reverses $40M Trade-Secret Verdict, Orders New Trial
Appeals court vacates damages, injunction, and attorney fees, remanding for a new trial over a flawed jury instruction.
2 reports on this incident · first at Aug 28, 2026, 3:11 p.m. ET
Earlier reports
Aug 28, 2026, 3:11 p.m. ETFirst report
Ninth Circuit Reverses $40M Trade-Secret Verdict Over Jury Instruction
The Ninth Circuit reversed a $40 million trade-secret verdict against XP Power, LLC, vacated an injunction and attorney fees, and remanded for a new trial, according to a report by the National Law Review. The court found that the jury was given an erroneous instruction on the burden of proof for ready ascertainability under the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA).
Comet Technologies USA, Inc. had sued XP Power under both the DTSA and California's Uniform Trade Secrets Act, alleging misappropriation of 20 trade secrets. The jury found that XP misappropriated three trade secrets and awarded $20 million in compensatory damages, $20 million in punitive damages, and more than $17 million in attorney fees.
The case is Comet Technologies USA, Inc. v. XP Power, LLC, 181 F.4th 988 (9th Cir. 2026). The appellate court's decision sends the case back for a new trial.
Was this report accurate and useful?
Sources
Revision history
- Version 128 Aug 2026, 19:11current
First published.
- Version 128 Aug 2026, 19:22current
First published.
How we work
This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble — all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.
Reports are built from primary sources — accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements — and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.
Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld — a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them — and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.
None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.