Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, LITIGATION NEWS, TRENDS—Palantir sues former engineers for alleged theft of AI platform trade secrets, (Nov 3, 2025)

By Saurabh Kashyap, B.A., M.A., LL.B., LL.M.

Complaint alleges that Palantir’s former employees stole trade secrets related to Palantir’s AI platform and used them to build a competing AI company.

Palantir Technologies Inc. filed a lawsuit in the Southern District of New York against its former senior employees, Radha Jain and Joanna Cohen, for trade secrets misappropriation, breach of non-competition obligations, and breach of confidentiality and return-of-property agreements. According to the complaint, Jain and Cohen improperly acquired and used Palantir’s proprietary information to create and operate Percepta AI, a new company that allegedly replicates Palantir’s products, business model, and client strategies (Palantir Technologies Inc. v. Jain, No. 25-cv-8985 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 30, 2025)).

Palantir Technologies Inc. is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Denver, Colorado. The company is globally recognized for its software platforms integrating artificial intelligence into operational workflows for commercial and government clients. Its flagship system, the Artificial Intelligence Platform (AIP), allows users to deploy, test, and manage AI models in real-time within complex data environments. Palantir has invested billions of dollars over two decades in developing its proprietary architecture, user interfaces, and machine learning tools, which the company describes as the result of "years of engineering effort and strategic investment."

Jain and Cohen were among Palantir's trusted employees who had access to its most sensitive trade secrets. Jain joined Palantir in 2020 and worked as an AI Product Engineer, helping design Palantir's AIP platform's structure and user logic. Cohen, who served as a Forward Deployed Engineer and later as Healthcare Lead, managed client-specific AI integrations in the healthcare sector and co-developed the company's Plan Acceptance Tool, a confidential solution built for major healthcare systems. Both defendants signed agreements prohibiting them from competing with Palantir, using or disclosing its confidential information, or retaining company property after termination of employment.

According to the complaint, the trade secrets at issue include: (1) Palantir’s proprietary source code for its AIP platform; (2) Internal demonstration workspaces used to prototype and test industry-specific AI applications; (3) Deployed customer workflows and configurations showing how clients implemented AIP in real-world operations; and (4) Customer engagement frameworks and playbooks describing Palantir’s methods for diagnosing client needs, customizing solutions, and presenting results.

Palantir alleged that this proprietary information formed the “backbone” of its commercial success and was not publicly available through any legitimate means. The company claimed it maintained strict security protocols, access controls, and confidentiality training to protect these trade secrets and that both defendants were fully aware of their continuing obligations under the PIIAs even after leaving the company.

Alleged misconduct and formation of Percepta AI. The complaint details what Palantir describes as a “coordinated plan” by Jain and Cohen to misappropriate trade secrets for use in founding a rival AI firm. Jain resigned from Palantir in November 2024, stating that she intended to take personal time but refused to sign the standard separation reaffirmation agreement. Cohen resigned in February 2025, citing personal reasons and declining to sign. Both, Palantir claims, concealed their future employment plans and failed to disclose that they were collaborating on a new startup venture.

In October 2025, nearly a year after Jain's departure, General Catalyst, a prominent venture capital firm, publicly announced the launch of Percepta AI, describing it as a company “helping enterprises harness the frontier of AI.” The announcement identified Hirsh Jain—a former Palantir executive and relative of Radha Jain—as Percepta’s Chief Executive Officer. The same day, Jain and Cohen updated their professional profiles to reveal their roles at Percepta: Jain as Co-Founder and Cohen as Applied AI Engineer. Palantir claims that approximately half of Percepta’s staff were former Palantir employees and that the new company’s offerings mirrored Palantir’s in nearly every respect.

Palantir’s complaint quotes statements from General Catalyst’s CEO, Hemant Taneja, describing Percepta as “a version of Palantir’s business.” Palantir asserts that Percepta’s marketing language and product design, including its platform known as Mosaic, closely resemble Palantir’s AIP system. The company contends that Percepta is targeting identical industries—finance, manufacturing, and healthcare—using trade secrets and methods derived directly from Palantir’s internal systems.

Forensic evidence and specific allegations. Palantir’s internal investigation allegedly revealed that Cohen, shortly before resigning, downloaded and transmitted confidential company materials to her personal devices. The complaint cites Slack messages showing that Cohen sent herself several proprietary documents, including a healthcare revenue-cycle management diagram, a demonstration planning framework, and a draft statement of work for a major healthcare client. Palantir asserts that these documents contained protected workflows and client-specific implementation strategies that could enable Percepta to “recreate Palantir’s demonstrations and engagements without the underlying research.”

Regarding Jain, Palantir claims that she used her knowledge of AIP’s architecture and her access to Palantir’s source code to design and develop Percepta’s competing software. The company asserts that Jain performed identical job functions at Percepta as she had at Palantir, thereby violating the one-year non-competition period contained in her PIIA.

Palantir argues that both defendants knowingly retained and exploited confidential materials belonging to the company. It alleges that their conduct was “deliberate, deceptive, and in bad faith,” aimed at giving Percepta an unfair competitive advantage by “shortcutting years of Palantir’s technical and commercial progress.”

Contractual breaches and causes of action Palantir’s complaint asserts three primary causes of action: (1) Breach of non-competition obligations (against both defendants)—alleging that by founding and working for Percepta, Jain and Cohen engaged in directly competitive activities within the restricted period; (2) Breach of confidentiality obligations (against Cohen)—alleging that she disclosed and used Palantir’s proprietary materials to benefit Percepta; and (3) Breach of return-of-property obligations (against Cohen)—alleging that she retained confidential documents and failed to return them upon departure.

The company emphasizes that both defendants’ agreements explicitly recognize that any breach would cause “irreparable harm” and entitle Palantir to equitable relief, including injunctions and tolling of the restricted period during any noncompliance.

Claims, remedies sought. Palantir seeks injunctive relief to prevent Jain and Cohen from further violating their contractual and fiduciary duties and from possessing, using, or disclosing Palantir’s trade secrets. The company requests an order compelling the defendants to return or destroy all confidential materials and to disclose the full extent of their use of Palantir’s intellectual property. Palantir also seeks to toll the non-competition period until the defendants fully comply with their contractual obligations.

Additionally, the complaint requests attorney fees, costs, and equitable relief, including disgorgement of profits obtained through the alleged misconduct. Palantir claims that monetary damages alone cannot remedy the loss of competitive advantage, goodwill, and proprietary innovation resulting from the defendants’ actions.

The Case is No. 1:25-cv-08985-JPO.

Judge: Oetken, J.

Attorneys: Ilissa Stacy Samplin and Harris M. Mufson (Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher) for Palantir Technologies, Inc. Steven Nathaniel Feldman (Latham & Watkins) for Radha Jain.

Companies: Palantir Technologies, Inc.; Percepta AI

News: LitigationNewsTrends TortClaims ContractClaims StateLawClaims