IP Law Daily, TRADE SECRETS—9th Cir.: Appeals court reinstates $81 million verdict against Boeing, (Aug 15, 2025)

By Brian Craig, J.D.

Substantial evidence with expert testimony supported the jury’s misappropriation findings.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has reinstated an $81 million verdict award against Boeing in a lawsuit accusing it of stealing trade secrets from electric-aircraft startup Zunum Aero. Concluding that the district court erred in granting judgment as a matter of law in favor of Boeing that essentially negated the jury verdict, the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s decision. The panel held that Substantial evidence with expert testimony supported the jury’s findings for misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of contract, and tortious interference.

The Ninth Circuit also reversed the district court’s conditional grant of a new trial and ordered that a new trial judge be reassigned to the case on remand because the district judge’s wife owned stock in Boeing (Zunum Aero, Inc. v. The Boeing Co., No. 24-5212 (9th Cir. Aug. 14, 2025)).

Zunum Aero, Inc. (Zunum) was in the business of developing hybrid-electric and electric aircraft technology. Zunum alleged that The Boeing Company (Boeing) and Safran S.A. (Safran) misappropriated. Zunum filed suit for violation of the Washington Trade Secrets Act and related claims in Washington state court. After receiving interrogatory responses from Zunum, Boeing asserted counterclaims seeking declaratory judgment on the inventorship of Boeing’s Active Voltage Control for Hybrid Electric Aircraft and Thin Haul Hybrid Electric Propulsion System patents. The case was removed to the federal district court in Washinton state. After an eight-day trial, the jury issued a split verdict, concluding that Boeing had misappropriated 11 of 19 alleged trade secrets, breached one contract, and tortiously interfered with Zunum’s business expectancy with a potential investor. The jury awarded $81 million in favor Zunum. The district court granted Boeing’s post-trial motion for judgment as a matter of law and tossed the jury verdict, concluding that substantial evidence did not support the jury verdict. Zunum appealed.

Trade secrets. The Ninth Circuit first reversed the district court’s grant of judgment as a matter of law in favor of Boeing on the misappropriation of trade secrets claim. The panel held that substantial evidence with expert testimony supported the jury’s misappropriation findings. The jury could have reasonably concluded that Boeing improperly used Zunum’s trade secrets for competitive purposes, which constitutes misappropriation under Washington law.

Breach of contract. The Ninth Circuit also reversed the district court’s grant of judgment as a matter of law in favor of Boeing on the breach of contract claim. First, the district court erred in concluding that Zunum failed to present substantial evidence at trial that Boeing made unauthorized use of Zunum’s confidential information in breach of the parties’ 2017 investor rights letter. Under the parties’ agreement, Boeing was not permitted to use Zunum’s confidential information for any reason other than to manage its investment in Zunum. Zunum introduced substantial evidence at trial from which a jury could reasonably infer that Boeing used Zunum’s confidential information for other purposes, including advancing Boeing’s own hybrid-electric aircraft.

Tortious interference. Next, the appeals court reversed the district court’s grant of judgment as a matter of law in favor of Boeing on Zunum’s tortious interference claim. The district court erred in concluding that the jury lacked substantial evidence to find that a deal between Safran and Zunum had a reasonable expectancy of fruition.

New trial. The Ninth Circuit also reversed the district court’s conditional grant of a new trial. The district court provided no substantive reasoning for its conditional ruling beyond that which it provided in its decision granting judgment as a matter of law. Because the district court based its grant of a new trial based on analysis that is centered on erroneous interpretations of the law, the appeals court reversed the decision for a conditional new trial.

Judicial reassignment. Finally, the Ninth Circuit remanded the case with an order that the case be assigned to a different district judge. The spouse of District Judge James L. Robart acquired Boeing stock on two separate occasions during the pendency of this litigation. The district judge did not disclose these transactions until September 2024—over a year later and just one day before entering final judgment.

The Case is No. 24-5212.

Judge: Robart, J.

Attorneys: Scott Danner (Holwell Shuster & Goldberg, LLP) for Zunum Aero, Inc. David A. Perez (Perkins Coie, LLP) for Boeing Co. and Boeing HorizonX Ventures, LLC.

Companies: Zunum Aero, Inc.; Boeing Co.; Boeing HorizonX Ventures, LLC; Safran S.A.

MainStory: TopStory TechnologyInternet TradeSecrets GCNNews AlaskaNews ArizonaNews CaliforniaNews HawaiiNews IdahoNews MontanaNews NevadaNews OregonNews WashingtonNews