India-based Tata Consultancy Services has failed to overturn a $168 million damages verdict awarded to DXC Technology by the US Supreme Court on Monday. The decision follows Tata's appeal against a lower court's confirmation of the financial penalty for what DXC alleged was the unlawful appropriation of confidential information related to life-insurance software.
The damages comprised $56 million in compensatory payments and $112 million in punitive damages awarded to DXC Technology, which is based in Ashburn, Virginia. DXC's predecessor entity, Computer Sciences Corp, had licensed the software to insurance company Transamerica during the 1990s. When DXC filed its lawsuit in Dallas federal court in 2019, it claimed that Tata had recruited approximately 2,200 former Transamerica employees and leveraged their knowledge of CSC's proprietary systems to develop a competing platform.
Tata rejected the claims, asserting during proceedings that the contested information lacked confidentiality status and that any access to the software occurred within legal boundaries. A jury delivered an advisory verdict in 2023 recommending a $210 million award, which U.S. District Judge Brantley Starr subsequently reduced to $168 million in 2024. The New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed Starr's decision in 2025.
Tata's Supreme Court petition centred on the grounds that DXC should not have received unjust enrichment damages without demonstrating concrete financial losses from the trade secret theft. The company further contended that the punitive component of the award was disproportionate under applicable US law. Under American trade secrets legislation, courts may award damages covering both the plaintiff's measurable losses and compensation for the defendant's financial advantage gained through the infringement.
DXC countered that the appellate court's application of established legal principles required no further judicial examination. The Supreme Court's rejection of Tata's petition concludes the multi-year legal contest between the two technology firms.
