“The Federal Circuit held that prejudgment interest should run from the date TAOS suffered actual financial injury—not automatically from the date the lawsuit was filed in 2008.”
“联邦巡回法院认为，判决前利息应从 TAOS 遭受实际经济损失之日起计算，而不是自动从 2008 年提起诉讼之日起计算。
On April 4, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) in a precedential decision largely upheld damages awarded to ams-OSRAM USA Inc. (formerly Texas Advanced Optoelectronic Solutions, or TAOS) in a long-running trade secret and contract dispute against Renesas Electronics America Inc. (formerly Intersil). The court affirmed tens of millions of dollars in disgorgement, exemplary damages, and reasonable royalties—but remanded for a narrow correction to the prejudgment interest calculation.
2025 年 4 月 4 日，美国联邦巡回上诉法院（CAFC）在一项具有先例意义的判决中基本维持了ams-OSRAM USA Inc.（前身为 Texas Advanced Optoelectronic Solutions，简称 TAOS）在与瑞萨电子美国公司（前身为 Intersil）的长期商业秘密和合同纠纷中获得的损害赔偿。法院维持了吐出利润（850万美元）、惩罚性赔偿（1,700万美元）及合同特许权使用费（660万美元）的裁决，但发回重审，对预估利息的计算进行了小范围的修正。
The case, first filed in 2008, arose from confidential technology that was shared during brief merger talks between the companies in 2004. At issue was TAOS’s ambient-light sensor technology—critical components in smartphones and tablets that adjust screen brightness based on environmental light. Although negotiations ended without a deal, Intersil used TAOS’s proprietary information to develop competing products, sparking a lawsuit that included claims of patent infringement, trade secret misappropriation, and breach of contract.
该案于 2008 年首次提起诉讼，起因是两家公司在 2004 年短暂的合并谈判中共享了保密技术。争议的焦点是 TAOS 的环境光传感器技术--智能手机和平板电脑中根据环境光线调节屏幕亮度的关键部件。虽然谈判最终没有达成交易，但Intersil利用TAOS的专有信息开发了竞争产品，引发了包括专利侵权、商业秘密盗用和违约在内的诉讼。
In 2015, a jury initially found in TAOS’s favor, but the case bounced through years of further proceedings and culminated in this latest Federal Circuit decision that left TAOS’s significant monetary recovery largely intact.
2015 年，陪审团初步裁定 TAOS 胜诉，但该案经过数年的进一步审理，最终以联邦巡回法院的最新裁决告终，TAOS 的巨额赔偿金基本未受影响。
In mid-2004, TAOS and Intersil explored a potential merger. Under a confidentiality agreement, TAOS disclosed sensitive information about its ambient-light sensor designs. When negotiations collapsed, Intersil allegedly incorporated that information into its own products and secured key customer “design wins.” One win in particular was a licensing agreement with Apple for the iPod Touch.
2004 年年中，TAOS 和 Intersil 探讨合并的可能性。根据保密协议，TAOS 披露了有关其环境光传感器设计的敏感信息。据称，谈判破裂后，Intersil 将这些信息纳入了自己的产品，并赢得了关键客户的 “设计中标”。 其中一个特别的胜利是与苹果公司签订了 iPod Touch 的许可协议。
TAOS then sued Intersil in 2008 in the Eastern District of Texas, asserting multiple causes of action. In 2015, a jury returned a broad verdict for TAOS, awarding substantial compensatory and punitive damages. However, overlapping legal theories and the scope of infringing sales led to a complex post-trial and appellate process.
随后，TAOS 于 2008 年在德克萨斯州东区法院起诉 Intersil，提出多项诉讼理由。2015 年，陪审团对 TAOS 做出了广泛的裁决，给予了巨额补偿性和惩罚性赔偿。然而，重叠的法律理论和侵权销售范围导致了复杂的审后和上诉过程。
The 2018 Federal Circuit Decision
2018 年联邦巡回法院判决
In 2018, the Federal Circuit affirmed Intersil’s liability for trade secret misappropriation but narrowed the grounds. Additionally, the court held that TAOS’s request for disgorgement of Intersil’s profits was an equitable remedy that required a judge—not a jury—to determine the award. As a result, the panel vacated the original jury award for trade secret damages and remanded for further proceedings.
2018 年，联邦巡回法院确认了 Intersil 公司的商业秘密盗用责任，但缩小了理由范围。此外，法院认为 TAOS 要求 Intersil 没收利润属于衡平法救济，需要由法官而非陪审团来决定赔偿金额。因此，合议庭撤销了陪审团对商业秘密损害赔偿的最初裁决，并发回重审。
This 2018 decision also directed the district court to reassess TAOS’s breach of contract claim separately. TAOS had sought royalties for Intersil’s use of non-trade-secret confidential information, and the Federal Circuit clarified that damages must be allocated between the two theories.
2018 年的这一裁决还指示地区法院重新单独评估 TAOS 的违约索赔。TAOS 曾要求 Intersil 为其使用非商业秘密的机密信息支付特许权使用费，联邦巡回法院明确指出，损害赔偿必须在两种理论之间进行分配。
The 2021 Remand Proceedings
2021 年的发回重审程序
On remand, the district court conducted a bench trial on disgorgement and convened a second jury trial for other factual issues. Ultimately, the court awarded:
发回重审后，地区法院就没收问题进行了庭审，并就其他事实问题召开了第二次陪审团庭审。最终，法院判决
Disgorgement of Intersil’s Profits (Trade Secret Claim): Approximately $8.5 million based on profits from the ISL29003 sensor, reflecting a 26-month “head start” Intersil gained through misappropriation.
没收 Intersil 的利润（商业秘密索赔）： 根据 ISL29003 传感器的利润计算，约为 850 万美元，反映了 Intersil 通过盗用获得的 26 个月的 “领先优势”。
Exemplary (Punitive) Damages: A jury found that Intersil acted with fraud, malice, or gross negligence. The district court, applying Texas law, capped punitive damages at twice the disgorgement amount—$17 million.
惩罚性赔偿： 陪审团认定 Intersil 存在欺诈、恶意或重大过失。地区法院适用德克萨斯州法律，将惩罚性赔偿的上限设定为没收金额的两倍--1,700 万美元。
Reasonable Royalty for Breach of Contract: $6.6 million for Intersil’s use of confidential but non-trade-secret information in other sensor products.
合理的违约特许权使用费：因 Intersil 在其他传感器产品中使用了机密但非商业秘密的信息而获得 660 万美元。
Attorney’s fees: TAOS also secured an award of attorney’s fees for prevailing on the contract claim.
律师费： TAOS还因合同索赔胜诉获判律师费。
The 2025 Appeal and the CAFC’s Ruling
2025 年的上诉和 CAFC 的裁决
Intersil appealed again, challenging both the disgorgement and exemplary damages awards. TAOS cross-appealed, seeking a broader disgorgement that included additional Apple product sales.
Intersil再度上诉，质疑吐出利润与惩罚性赔偿的合理性。TAOS 提出交叉上诉，要求更广泛的没收，包括额外的苹果产品销售。
The Federal Circuit corrected a factual finding and held that TAOS’s trade secret became publicly accessible by February 28, 2005—not January 2006 as the district court ruled. However, this earlier date ultimately did not affect the damages, as Intersil’s misappropriation and key design wins still fell within the applicable 26-month “head start” period.
联邦巡回法院纠正了一项事实认定，认为 TAOS 的商业秘密在 2005 年 2 月 28 日之前已可公开获取，而不是地区法院裁定的 2006 年 1 月。然而，这个较早的日期最终并没有影响损害赔偿，因为 Intersil 的盗用和关键设计获胜仍在适用的 26 个月 “起始期 ”内。
The court rejected Intersil’s arguments that exemplary damages were impermissible because disgorgement is an equitable remedy and said Intersil waived its argument by failing to raise it in the prior appeal. The court also rejected Intersil’s double recovery argument, affirming the district court’s ruling that awarding both contract royalties and trade secret disgorgement did not constitute double recovery, since the awards covered separate and distinct sets of products.
法院驳回了 Intersil 的论点，即惩戒性损害赔偿是不允许的，因为没收是一种衡平法补救措施，并称 Intersil 因未在之前的上诉中提出该论点而放弃了该论点。法院还驳回了 Intersil 公司关于双重赔偿的论点，维持了地区法院的裁决，即同时判给合同使用费和商业秘密没收并不构成双重赔偿，因为这两项赔偿涉及不同的产品。
On TAOS’s cross-appeal, the CAFC affirmed the district court’s refusal to extend disgorgement to profits from later Apple design wins related to the iPhone 3G, concluding that those sales occurred after the head start period ended.
在 TAOS 的交叉上诉中，CAFC 确认地区法院拒绝将没收范围扩大到后来苹果公司赢得的与 iPhone 3G 相关的设计利润，并认定这些销售发生在起始期结束之后。
The only point of reversal concerned prejudgment interest. The Federal Circuit held that prejudgment interest should run from the date TAOS suffered actual financial injury—not automatically from the date the lawsuit was filed in 2008. Because some of Intersil’s relevant sales occurred later, the district court must recalculate the interest to reflect the proper accrual dates.
唯一被推翻的一点涉及预付利息。联邦巡回法院认为，预估利息应从 TAOS 遭受实际经济损失之日起计算，而不是自动从 2008 年提起诉讼之日起计算。由于 Intersil 的一些相关销售发生得较晚，地区法院必须重新计算利息，以反映正确的应计日期。