A $116.9 million jury verdict against aerospace company Joby Aero serves as a significant reminder that confidential technical information obtained from a supplier under an NDA may not later be used to accelerate internal product development. Although the verdict remains subject to post-trial motions and appeal, the case highlights several contractual and operational risks that companies should consider when evaluating suppliers, technologies, and development opportunities.

In Aerosonic LLC v. Joby Aero, Inc., No. 8:25-cv-00554-VMC-AAS, Verdict Form, ECF No. 543 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 2, 2026) a jury in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida awarded approximately $116.9 million after finding that Joby Aero breached a mutual nondisclosure agreement and willfully misappropriated trade secrets concerning aircraft air-data probes.

Why This Matters

NDAs restrict how confidential information may be used, not merely how it is disclosed.

Internal development projects can create risk when they overlap with supplier disclosures.

Trade secret and contract claims may arise from the same conduct.

Damages for misuse of technical information can be substantial.

The Supplier Relationship and NDA

Aerosonic manufactures aircraft instruments and air-data components. Joby develops electric vertical-takeoff-and-landing aircraft.

The companies entered into a mutual nondisclosure agreement in September 2021 while discussing a potential relationship under which Aerosonic would supply Joby with air-data probes. These probes collect information used by aircraft systems, including airspeed, altitude and aerodynamic measurements.

According to Aerosonic, after discussions regarding a potential supply relationship and possible acquisition of certain technology rights, Joby elected to pursue internal development of an air-data probe. Aerosonic alleged that Joby continued requesting technical information while doing so.

An earlier court order denying Joby’s motion to dismiss describes the NDA and Aerosonic’s allegations in greater detail.

The Jury Verdict

On October 2, 2026, the jury found that Joby breached the parties’ NDA and willfully misappropriated Aerosonic’s trade secrets. The reported award included:

More than $68 million for breach of the NDA; and
More than $48 million for willful trade-secret misappropriation.

A Valid Disclosure Today May Become a Problem Tomorrow

Confidential information is frequently exchanged for a limited purpose, such as evaluating a supply arrangement, license, acquisition or joint-development opportunity. A recipient’s possession of the information may be entirely proper at the outset.

The risk arises when the recipient’s business objective changes.

A business that initially evaluates a supplier may later decide to manufacture the product internally or engage a different supplier. Information received for the original evaluation cannot automatically be used for the new purpose. Continuing to solicit technical information after deciding to pursue internal development can create particularly serious risk.

Businesses should therefore establish procedures requiring legal review when an evaluation project changes direction. The internal development team should be separated from confidential supplier information when appropriate, and the business should preserve records demonstrating independent development.

Generic Confidentiality Language May Not Be Enough

Many NDAs prohibit unauthorized disclosure but do not adequately regulate how the recipient may use the information. In supplier and product-development relationships, the agreement should address more than disclosure to outsiders.

Businesses involved in supplier evaluations or product-development discussions should consider addressing the following issues expressly in their NDAs:

Whether the recipient may use the information to design, benchmark or develop a competing or substitute product.
Whether purchased samples may be examined, scanned, tested, disassembled or reverse engineered.
Whether information may be shared with affiliates, contractors, laboratories or alternative manufacturers.
What happens if the recipient abandons the proposed relationship and begins internal development.
Whether the recipient must notify the disclosing party when the original evaluation purpose ends.
The return or certified deletion of drawings, test results, extracts, notes and derivative materials.
The preservation of records demonstrating independent development.

A provision restricting use to “evaluating a potential business relationship” may be useful, but the parties should consider defining what that phrase permits and prohibits.

Later Agreements Should Not Accidentally Displace the NDA

The case also illustrates a recurring issue when parties sign an NDA and later enter into purchase orders, supply agreements or other commercial arrangements.

A later agreement may contain an integration clause, inconsistent confidentiality terms or a different limitation-of-liability provision. Those provisions can create uncertainty over whether the original NDA remains effective.

The later contract should state expressly whether it supplements, supersedes or leaves the NDA intact. It should also specify whether liability limitations apply to intentional misuse of confidential information, prohibited reverse engineering or trade-secret misappropriation.

Trade Secret and Contract Claims May Proceed Together

The verdict demonstrates that the same conduct may support both a breach-of-contract claim and a claim under the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act. Businesses often pursue both contract and trade-secret claims arising from the same alleged misuse of confidential information.

Contract protection can be broader than statutory trade-secret protection. An NDA may protect information that does not ultimately satisfy every requirement for treatment as a trade secret. Conversely, trade-secret law may provide remedies, including potential exemplary damages and attorneys’ fees for willful misconduct, that are not available under the contract. For that reason, an NDA may be the primary line of defense

A plaintiff generally cannot receive duplicative recovery for the same injury. The treatment of the separate damages awards may therefore become an issue in Joby’s anticipated post-trial proceedings.

Practical Takeaways

For businesses disclosing information:

Define permitted uses narrowly.
Prohibit competitive use where appropriate.
Address reverse engineering expressly.
Require return or certified deletion of materials.

For recipients of information:

Reevaluate compliance obligations when project objectives change.
Restrict access to authorized personnel.
Maintain documentation supporting independent development.
Seek legal review before repurposing information obtained under an NDA.

Joby has stated that it intends to pursue post-trial and appellate remedies. Because the Aerosonic verdict remains subject to post-trial motions and potential appellate review, the ultimate outcome and damages award could change.

Regardless of whether the verdict withstands appellate review, the case illustrates a recurring risk in modern product-development relationships: information obtained during supplier discussions may become the foundation of later trade-secret and contract claims if business objectives shift. Companies should ensure that their NDAs, internal development procedures, and information-governance practices evolve together.

For further information about NDAs, see our previously published Insight on Creating Effective Non-Disclosure Agreements: Key Considerations.