O9 Solutions Inc. has secured an important early legal victory in its trade secret lawsuit against enterprise software giant SAP SE (SAP) in the Northern District of Texas.
The case centres on allegations that three former senior O9 employees, including its Chief Revenue Officer, left to join competitor SAP and took thousands of confidential files with them before departing.
O9 Solutions, an artificial intelligence software company, claims those employees downloaded thousands of files containing confidential business information and trade secrets ahead of their departure.
The lawsuit asserts misappropriation claims under both the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act and the Texas Uniform Trade Secrets Act, alongside breach of confidentiality agreements and tortious interference with contractual relations.
The individual defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing O9 had failed to plausibly describe its trade secrets or explain how each defendant individually misappropriated them.
Magistrate Judge David Horan rejected that challenge, citing Centennial Bank v. Holmes and confirming that plaintiffs need not describe trade secrets with exacting particularity to survive dismissal at this stage.
O9’s complaint identified eight distinct groupings of trade secrets, including its Digital Brain platform design, products roadmap, customer lists, sales strategies, competitive intelligence, and financial information.
The court found that O9 had also adequately pleaded reasonable secrecy measures, including NDAs, encryption, password protection, need-to-know access restrictions, and detailed confidentiality obligations in employee agreements.
The behavioural evidence alleged in the complaint proved particularly compelling, with one defendant reportedly mass downloading nearly 10,000 files on 30 December 2024, the same day he met the departing CRO for breakfast.
A second defendant allegedly sent himself a “test” email followed by one with the subject line “Download Spullen”, which translates from Dutch as “Download Stuff”, before forwarding himself emails containing O9 trade secrets.
Shortly after the defendants joined SAP, the former CRO reposted an article announcing that Henkel, a customer both O9 and SAP had competed for, had partnered with SAP for AI-assisted solutions O9 had been developing for that same client.
The court also rejected SAP’s argument that asserting claims against SAP SE and SAP America collectively amounted to impermissible group pleading, with Judge Horan noting that “Group pleading is not inherently evil” where adequate notice and joint conduct are alleged.
Defendants additionally sought to transfer proceedings to the Netherlands on forum non conveniens grounds, but that motion failed because they did not identify key witnesses by name or outline the substance of their testimony.
For trade secret litigators, the ruling reinforces a clear three-part pleading framework: identify trade secrets by category, provide document-level examples within each category, and describe the specific measures used to maintain confidentiality.
The case now moves to U.S. District Judge Sam A. Lindsay for final disposition, with defendants granted 14 days to file written objections to the magistrate’s findings.