High-tech litigation over trade secrets continues to dominate headlines, often involving substantial monetary awards. In 2018, Uber settled with Waymo for $245 million after Waymo alleged that a former engineer downloaded thousands of files containing proprietary lidar designs for Uber 1. More recently, in May 2025, an Arkansas jury ordered Walmart to pay approximately $223 million to Zest Labs for misappropriating trade secrets related to food-freshness tracking technology—reflecting a broader trend of massive trade secret verdicts 2. That same spring, in April 2025, Lamborghini became the target of a major trade secret lawsuit filed by Prema Engineering, which alleged that Lamborghini had unlawfully accessed and used four "steering wheel setup" files—software configurations critical to endurance Hypercar racing—without authorization following the termination of their technical partnership.
The Prema Engineering v. Lamborghini dispute exemplifies how technical partnerships can go awry when clear legal rights are poorly defined and boundaries are not enforced. In its April 2025 complaint, Prema Engineering alleges that during a 2024 technical partnership with Lamborghini and the Iron Lynx racing team, Lamborghini secretly copied multiple "Setup" files—proprietary software packages used to configure Hypercar steering wheels—in violation of agreed-upon use restrictions. According to Prema, Lamborghini accessed a blank steering wheel provided for limited simulator testing at Circuit of the Americas in July 2024 3. When the hardware was returned in October 2024, Prema discovered its own confidential Setup installed, with usage logs indicating repeated unauthorized deployments by Lamborghini between late August and mid-September 2024.
Although both Automobili Lamborghini S.p.A. and Prema Engineering are Italian entities, the lawsuit was filed in the United States, drawing little attention from the Italian press. The 2024 simulator session at Circuit of the Americas in Austin, Texas, provided the jurisdictional basis for the case. Italian commentators have noted that U.S. courts are often preferred for high-stakes intellectual property disputes due to stronger discovery powers, faster procedures, and the potential for higher damages compared to Italy's more conservative and slower civil system. Moreover, Prema may have chosen a U.S. venue to apply pressure on Lamborghini through reputational exposure in a market where Lamborghini has significant commercial interests and brand presence.
U.S. trade secret law, particularly the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA), provides a powerful forum for foreign plaintiffs to seek redress when misappropriation has a substantial connection to the United States. The DTSA offers federal jurisdiction, robust remedies, and the possibility of expedited relief such as seizure orders, which are often unavailable or more limited in European courts. For European companies operating globally, U.S. courts can serve as strategic venues to enforce trade secret rights when key acts of misuse or access occur within the U.S. or involve U.S.-linked systems and collaborators. The complaint alleges violations of multiple intellectual property and computer crime statutes, including: DTSA (brought under 18 U.S.C. § 1836, citing 18 U.S.C. § 1831 et seq.), the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA, 18 U.S.C. § 1030), the U.S. Copyright Act, the Texas Uniform Trade Secrets Act, and Texas's Harmful Access by Computer Act. These claims are based on allegations of unauthorized acquisition, use, and reproduction of protected digital assets, as well as improper access to secured systems. If Prema succeeds, Lamborghini could be enjoined from using those files and may owe disgorgement of any performance-related gains secured through misappropriation 4. The case has sparked debate in Italy about the need for clearer IP frameworks and stronger protections for innovation within domestic supplier networks.
This is just one of many recent high stakes trade secret cases demonstrating that robust protections require both legal and technical safeguards. Companies could implement clear contractual controls, including strict usage limitations, data retention policies, and certified destruction procedures, while deploying advanced security measures like digital watermarking, encryption, and AI-driven access monitoring. Real time anomaly detection can flag suspicious activity, while rigorous offboarding protocols, such as immediate access revocation and documented exit certifications, help mitigate post-employment risks. These layered defenses can not only deter trade secret theft but also strengthen legal claims by proving 'reasonable efforts' to maintain secrecy, a critical factor in trade secret litigation. Proactive compliance is no longer optional; it is a strategic imperative in today's competitive landscape.
In the United States, companies can pursue federal and state remedies under the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) of 2016 5 and the Uniform Trade Secrets Act (UTSA) 6. To qualify for protection, the information at issue—such as software algorithms, engineering specifications, or other confidential business assets—must satisfy two key criteria: (1) it derives independent economic value from not being generally known, and (2) it is safeguarded by reasonable efforts to maintain its secrecy. Common safeguards include confidentiality agreements (NDAs), access restrictions, and employee training to ensure proper handling of confidential materials.
In addition to injunctive relief, trade secret owners can recover monetary damages for misappropriation, including actual losses, the defendant's unjust enrichment (e.g., profits from exploiting the stolen secrets), and, in egregious cases, punitive damages. Forensic analysis, a systematic investigation used to identify, preserve, and analyze digital or physical evidence related to trade secret misappropriation, helps quantify harm by assessing the trade secret's value, revenue linked to misuse, and development costs. A well-documented damages claim strengthens accountability and deters future theft. In fast-moving sectors like automotive engineering and software development, even minor leaks can translate into substantial losses for a company.
For investors, acquirers, and strategic partners in high-tech industries, trade secret due diligence is no longer a formality, it is a critical risk management function. Legal teams should proactively assess cybersecurity protocols, the enforceability of confidentiality agreements, incident response plans, and evidence of past data breaches. As software engineering, AI development, and hardware integration increasingly converge, the line between competitive intelligence and misappropriation can become blurred. Companies that fail to modernize their trade secret protections—such as by deploying real-time access monitoring, maintaining forensic-ready system logs, or implementing role-based access controls—expose themselves not only to legal liability but also to irreversible erosion of enterprise value. Particularly for European stakeholders engaged in U.S.-based ventures or global technical collaborations, early legal planning and rigorous compliance can make the difference between protecting proprietary innovation and losing it in a courtroom.
This publication is distributed with the understanding that the author, publisher, and distributor of this publication and/or any linked publication are not rendering legal, accounting, or other professional advice or opinions on specific facts or matters and, accordingly, assume no liability whatsoever in connection with its use. Pursuant to applicable rules of professional conduct, portions of this publication may constitute Attorney Advertising. The choice of a lawyer is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements.
Footnotes
1. Ian Wren, Uber, Google's Waymo Settle Case Over Trade Secrets for Self-Driving Cars, NPR (Feb. 9, 2018), https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/02/09/584522541/uber-googles-waymo-settle-case-over-trade-secrets-for-self-driving-cars.
2. Kyle Jahner, Walmart Hit With $223 Million Verdict at Trade Secrets Trial, Bloomberg L. (May 15, 2025), https://news.bloomberglaw.com/ip-law/walmart-slapped-with-223-million-verdict-at-trade-secrets-trial.
3. Prema Engineering S.r.l. v. Automobili Lamborghini S.p.A. et al., No. 1:25-cv-00602 (W.D. Tex. filed Apr. 21, 2025).
4. The Fashion Law, Lamborghini Accused of Stealing Hypercar Trade Secrets from Racing Partner, https://www.thefashionlaw.com/lamborghini-accused-of-stealing-hypercar-trade-secret-from-racing-partner/
5. Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1831–1839 (2018).
6. Uniform Trade Secrets Act (amended 1985), WIPO Lex, https://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/text/500704 (last visited June 4, 2025).
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
