Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherJoin the NetworkGet StartedSubscribeSupportContact
Search
Close

CAV Reverses Largest Verdict in Virginia History

By Jay O'Keeffe on August 1, 2024
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn

On Tuesday, the CAV handed down its opinion in Pegasystems Inc. v. Appian Corporation, reversing the largest jury verdict in Virginia history. Pegasystems is a trade-secrets case. The jury tagged Pegas with a verdict of more than $2 billion. (Fun fact: This case was tried in Fairfax at the same time as the Johnny Depp/Amber Heard fiasco, so the media was completely distracted.) The CAV reverses, with Judge Friedman writing for a panel that includes Judges Beales and Callin. I don’t have anything intelligent to say about trade secrets or corporate espionage,* but the Court’s treatment of evidentiary issues–particularly the excluded software evidence in Part IV–seems pretty compelling.

Given the stakes this opinion won’t be the end of the line for this case. It will be interesting to see if Appian petitions for rehearing en banc or just goes straight to SCOVA for a writ. An en banc rehearing would give Appian a chance of getting a dissent, which in turn would improve their chances of having a writ granted. And judging by the lawyers involved, money appears to be no object. On the other hand, this is the largest verdict in Virginia history, so the parties already have SCOVA’s attention. And speed could be important. Under Code Section 8.01-676.1, a suspension bond cannot exceed $25 million irrespective of the size of the judgment. So if Appian has concerns about Pega’s continued financial health or ability to cut a check for $2,036,860,045, it may choose to press ahead.

Finally, nice to see an amicus brief from longtime friend of De Novo and all-around genius Willy Jay.

* Unintelligent comment: It is objectively funny that Appian hired Pega’s head of competitive intelligence, whose job apparently involved spying on Appian. (At Pega, he literally hired a consultant with access to Appian’s products who he described as a “spy.”) In a twist we all saw coming, that hire led to this lawsuit.

Photo of Jay O'Keeffe Jay O'Keeffe

Jay focuses his practice on appellate litigation and consumer-protection law. He has briefed or argued dozens of cases before the Supreme Court of Virginia, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, and the Court of Appeals of Virginia. He also…

Jay focuses his practice on appellate litigation and consumer-protection law. He has briefed or argued dozens of cases before the Supreme Court of Virginia, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, and the Court of Appeals of Virginia. He also teaches Federal Litigation at UVA law school.

Read more about Jay O'KeeffeEmailJames's Linkedin ProfileJames's Twitter ProfileJames's Facebook Profile
Show more Show less
  • Posted in:
    Intellectual Property
  • Blog:
    De Novo
  • Organization:
    MichieHamlett
  • Article: View Original Source

Call us at 1-800-913-0988 or email sales@lexblog.com.

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
The Library at LexBlog
  • About LexBlog
  • The Field We Built
  • Library at LexBlog
  • Our Beliefs
  • Our Team
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Disclaimer
  • Editorial Policy
  • Terms of Service
  • Get Started
  • Publishing Solutions
  • Compass
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
Copyright © 2026, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo