Boeing has petitioned the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to reconsider its August decision that reinstated a $72 million jury verdict in favor of Zunum Aero, an electric aircraft startup. Boeing contends that the appellate panel’s ruling introduces “confusion, conflict, and injustice” into the legal proceedings.
The legal dispute began when Zunum Aero accused Boeing of misappropriating trade secrets related to hybrid-electric aircraft technology. In May 2024, a federal jury in Seattle awarded Zunum $72 million, finding that Boeing had willfully and maliciously misused Zunum’s proprietary information. The jury’s verdict included approximately $81.2 million for trade secret misappropriation and $11.6 million for tortious interference, with a reduction of $20.8 million due to Zunum’s failure to mitigate damages. ([reuters.com](https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/boeing-hit-with-72-mln-verdict-ev-aircraft-trade-secrets-case-2024-05-31/?utm_source=openai))
However, in August 2024, U.S. District Judge James Robart overturned the jury’s verdict, stating that Zunum had not adequately identified its trade secrets or demonstrated their value derived from secrecy. ([reuters.com](https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/boeing-convinces-us-judge-overturn-72-mln-trade-secrets-verdict-2024-08-14/?utm_source=openai))
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed Judge Robart’s decision in August 2025, reinstating the original jury verdict. The appellate court determined that Zunum had provided sufficient specificity regarding its trade secrets, which were deemed legally protectable, not generally known, and valuable. ([reuters.com](https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/us-court-reinstates-81-million-award-against-boeing-trade-secrets-case-2025-08-14/?utm_source=openai))
Adding complexity to the case, it was revealed that Judge Robart’s wife had acquired Boeing stock through a retirement account during the litigation. Although the judge divested the holdings upon discovery, the Ninth Circuit ordered the case to be reassigned to a new judge for post-trial proceedings to avoid any appearance of conflict of interest. ([reuters.com](https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/us-court-reinstates-81-million-award-against-boeing-trade-secrets-case-2025-08-14/?utm_source=openai))
Boeing’s recent petition for rehearing emphasizes concerns that the appellate court’s decision may lead to legal inconsistencies and potential injustices. The company argues that the ruling could set a precedent that complicates the identification and valuation of trade secrets in future cases.
This case underscores the critical importance of precisely defining trade secrets in litigation. Legal experts note that plaintiffs must provide clear and specific descriptions of their proprietary information to establish protectable trade secrets. ([hodgsonruss.com](https://www.hodgsonruss.com/newsroom/publications/identifying-trade-secrets-with-precision-is-essential-to-successful-claims?utm_source=openai))
The outcome of Boeing’s petition for rehearing remains uncertain. Legal professionals and industry observers are closely monitoring the case, recognizing its potential to influence future trade secret litigation and the aerospace sector’s approach to proprietary technology.