Background
Sonrai Systems, an Illinois-based fleet management technology company, developed proprietary “Vector” technology — a vehicle information tool enabling garbage truck fleet operators to monitor real-time data from truck chassis and collection bodies to optimize fleet operations. In 2014, Sonrai entered confidentiality agreements with The Heil Co. (doing business as Environmental Solutions Group), a major garbage truck manufacturer, during negotiations for a potential deal.
When Heil declined Sonrai’s valuation, it instead recruited Anthony Romano, Sonrai’s Executive Vice President. Romano allegedly downloaded proprietary data over a 22-hour period before wiping his corporate laptop — erasing 236 GB and transferring 30 GB to external drives. He then joined Heil, where he allegedly used the misappropriated information to help develop a competing product called “Enhance.” Heil also acquired competing products from a third-party company, allegedly violating its 2014 confidentiality agreement with Sonrai.
The litigation spanned nearly a decade. In June 2025, a jury found Heil engaged in willful and malicious misappropriation and awarded $28.9 million in compensatory damages against Heil, plus $30 million in punitive damages against Heil and $1 in nominal punitive damages against Romano (whom the jury characterized as a “pawn” in Heil’s strategy, despite his evidence destruction). Heil moved for a new trial or remittitur.
The Court’s Holding
Judge Durkin granted remittitur, reducing the total verdict from approximately $58.9 million to $10.4 million — an 82% reduction. The court found that while the evidence showed Heil’s behavior was “reprehensible,” the damages awarded by the jury were excessive and not supported by the trial record.
Heil had challenged the damages on multiple fronts, including attacking the plaintiffs’ damages expert’s methodology. The expert’s projections assumed sales that were never realized — neither Waste Management nor Republic Services had purchased any Vector units, and another potential customer had terminated its trial due to service failures. The defense argued these facts were omitted from the damages model. The court apparently agreed that the compensatory damages were inflated by speculative lost-profits projections.
The resulting $10.4 million figure is consistent with an application of the Defend Trade Secrets Act’s statutory cap on exemplary damages, which limits such damages to no more than twice the compensatory amount — suggesting the court may have found approximately $5.2 million in compensatory damages supported by the evidence, then applied the 2x cap for the exemplary component.
Key Takeaways
- Juries may sympathize with trade secret victims, but courts will correct inflated damages. The 82% reduction underscores that even clear evidence of willful misappropriation does not guarantee a large verdict will survive post-trial scrutiny — the damages must be tethered to provable economic harm.
- Speculative lost-profits projections are vulnerable. When a plaintiff’s product has not achieved significant market penetration, damages models projecting large future sales face heightened skepticism, particularly when key potential customers did not purchase the product.
- The DTSA’s 2x exemplary damages cap matters. The statutory limitation on exemplary damages provides a concrete ceiling that constrains even the most egregious misconduct — a factor trade secret plaintiffs must account for in evaluating case value.
- Evidence destruction doesn’t guarantee proportionate punishment. Despite Romano’s dramatic evidence destruction (wiping 236 GB and transferring data to external drives), the court assessed damages based on provable economic harm rather than the severity of the misconduct.
Why It Matters
This case provides a stark illustration of the gap between jury verdicts and judicially sustainable damages in trade secret litigation. For companies considering trade secret claims, the ruling reinforces that damages experts must build their models on demonstrable market traction and actual customer commitments rather than aspirational sales projections. For defendants, it demonstrates that even multi-million-dollar verdicts can be substantially reduced on post-trial review when the damages evidence is speculative. The decade-long litigation timeline also highlights the extraordinary costs of trade secret disputes — a consideration that should inform both litigation strategy and settlement negotiations.