On August 14, 2025, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously overturned the lower court’s decision and restored the $81.2 million damages award in a dispute between The Boeing Co. and an electric-aircraft startup Zunum Aero, Inc.
In the district court case, the jury verdict found that Boeing misappropriated 11 of Zunum’s trade secrets, breached a confidentiality agreement tied to its investment, and interfered with Zunum’s negotiations with aerospace supplier Safran. The district court later granted Boeing judgment as a matter of law, ruling that Zunum had not identified its trade secrets with enough specificity and had failed to prove value, misappropriation, and damages. On appeal, however, the Ninth Circuit disagreed, holding that Zunum presented sufficient evidence for the jury to reach its verdict.
This decision highlights two important points within trade secret law. First, the Ninth Circuit clarified that startups need not define trade secrets with exact boundaries at trial, so long as they identify them with “sufficient specificity” for the jury to determine that they are “not generally known, not readily ascertainable, and valuable.” Second, the decision shows how critical strong evidence is to protecting trade secrets. Here, the Ninth Circuit panel relied upon expert testimony and Boeing’s internal communications as providing a reasonable basis for the jury to conclude that Boeing used Zunum’s trade secrets to gain a “competitive advantage,” which amounts to misappropriation under Washington law.
Additionally, the Ninth Circuit reinstated Zunum’s breach of contract and tortious interference claims, finding that Boeing may have leveraged confidential information to advance its hybrid-electric aircraft program while undermining Zunum’s investment talks with Safran. Finally, the panel ordered reassignment of the case to a different district judge after concerns arose about delayed disclosure of the Boeing stock purchases by the judge’s spouse, which raised questions about “impartiality.”
This case serves as a good reminder that trade secrets may serve as a safeguard for protecting intellectual property, especially in collaborations between startups and established aerospace industry leaders. This case reinforces that courts will respect the jury’s role in weighing technical evidence and that startups need not over-disclose to establish protectable trade secrets. For companies developing cutting-edge aviation technologies, this decision highlights the importance of structuring contracts carefully with confidentiality agreements and clear terms, safeguarding confidential information, and building a strong IP strategy to protect proprietary innovations.
Subscribe for News and Updates
