Circuit Split Deepens Over DTSA Unjust Enrichment: Tata-CSC Petition Asks Supreme Court to Resolve Damages Standard

A deepening circuit split over the requirements for unjust enrichment damages under the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) has reached the U.S. Supreme Court. Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. (TCS) filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in the case Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. v. Computer Sciences Corp., No. 25-1107, asking the Court to resolve whether the DTSA permits an unjust enrichment award without proof of actual loss to the plaintiff. The respondent’s answering brief was due May 7, 2026. If the Court grants certiorari, it would mark the Supreme Court’s first definitive ruling on the scope of DTSA damages.

Background of the Dispute

TCS, India’s largest IT services company, was sued by Computer Sciences Corporation (CSC, now DXC Technology) for allegedly accessing CSC’s confidential software design information and using it to develop a competing platform and win a significant contract. A Texas jury found TCS liable for trade secret misappropriation under the DTSA and awarded CSC approximately $210 million in total damages. The award comprised $56 million in unjust enrichment damages—measured by the development costs TCS avoided by using CSC’s trade secrets—along with $112 million in exemplary damages for willful and malicious conduct, and additional amounts for other claims.

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the unjust enrichment award in November 2025 (Computer Sciences Corp. v. Tata Consultancy Services Ltd., No. 24-10749), holding that unjust enrichment under the DTSA is a standalone remedy focused on the defendant’s gain, and that a plaintiff need not prove actual compensable loss to recover it.

The Circuit Split

TCS’s certiorari petition identifies a direct conflict between the Fifth Circuit’s ruling and the Second Circuit’s earlier decision in Syntel Sterling Best Shores Mauritius Ltd. v. TriZetto Group, Inc. In Syntel, the Second Circuit held that unjust enrichment damages under the DTSA require proof of “compensable harm” beyond lost profits—meaning the plaintiff must demonstrate some actual injury before the defendant’s avoided costs can serve as a damages baseline.

The Fifth Circuit rejected this requirement. In its view, the DTSA’s text authorizes unjust enrichment as a separate category of damages from “actual loss,” and courts may award the defendant’s unjust gains even when the plaintiff cannot quantify a corresponding loss on its own side.

The split is directly relevant to multiparty technology disputes, particularly in the IT services and consulting sectors. In cases where a vendor or contractor misappropriates trade secrets from a client to accelerate product development, the avoided-development-cost measure can produce large awards that bear no relationship to the client’s own financial harm.

What Is at Stake

Congress enacted the DTSA in 2016 to create a federal cause of action for trade secret misappropriation, previously litigated under a patchwork of state laws. While the statute provides for both “actual loss” and “unjust enrichment” as measures of damages (18 U.S.C. § 1836(b)(3)(B)(i)), the relationship between the two measures—and whether unjust enrichment requires proof of plaintiff loss—has remained unsettled.

If the Supreme Court grants certiorari and adopts the Fifth Circuit’s approach, plaintiffs in DTSA cases nationwide would be able to seek unjust enrichment awards based solely on the defendant’s avoided costs, regardless of whether the plaintiff suffered a quantifiable financial injury. This would significantly expand the exposure of defendants in trade secret litigation, particularly in technology, pharmaceutical, and professional services industries where detailed cost-avoidance analysis can generate large damages figures.

Conversely, if the Court adopts the Second Circuit’s approach, plaintiffs would be required to establish a direct link between the defendant’s gain and the plaintiff’s harm—a more demanding standard that could limit recovery in cases where misappropriation produced efficiency gains for the defendant without demonstrably harming the plaintiff’s market position.

The Court’s decision on whether to grant certiorari is expected later in 2026. Patent and trade secret practitioners are closely monitoring the case, which has implications well beyond the IT services sector for any company that relies on proprietary technical information as a competitive asset.