Background
C3 AI, a Silicon Valley enterprise artificial intelligence company, entered a licensing agreement with Cummins Inc., the Indiana-based power solutions manufacturer. Under the deal, Cummins obtained access to C3 AI’s proprietary platform for developing AI-powered predictive maintenance and optimization tools. The dispute arose after a Cummins employee inadvertently shared internal meeting notes that revealed Cummins had been using C3 AI’s confidential technology and trade secrets beyond the scope of their agreement.
C3 AI sued Cummins in Delaware Superior Court, alleging misappropriation of trade secrets. The case proceeded to a jury trial in May 2026.
The Court’s Holding
On May 19, 2026, a Delaware jury unanimously found that Cummins Inc. misappropriated C3 AI’s trade secrets and awarded $23.3 million in damages. The jury concluded that Cummins had improperly used C3 AI’s proprietary technology outside the bounds of their licensing relationship.
This is a jury verdict, not a written judicial opinion. Post-trial motions may follow, and the damages figure could be subject to further proceedings.
Key Takeaways
- Companies licensing AI platform technology should implement strict internal controls to ensure use stays within contractual bounds — inadvertent disclosures can become key evidence of misappropriation.
- The $23.3 million verdict reflects the significant value courts and juries are placing on proprietary AI technology trade secrets.
- Delaware remains a favored jurisdiction for high-value trade secret litigation, particularly involving technology companies.
Why It Matters
This verdict is a meaningful data point in the growing body of trade secret litigation involving AI platforms. As companies increasingly license or partner to access AI tools, the boundaries of what licensees can do with the technology — and the consequences of crossing those boundaries — are being tested. The $23.3 million award signals that juries are prepared to impose substantial damages when companies are found to have misused a partner’s proprietary AI technology. The case also highlights the risk that internal communications — even inadvertently shared meeting notes — can become smoking-gun evidence in misappropriation disputes.