Cognizant seeks dismissal of Infosys counterclaims in TriZetto fight

The software services giant repeated its allegation that Infosys misappropriated confidential information from its healthcare platform, TriZetto, and refused audit rights meant to detect the scale of the breach.

For context, while the healthcare vertical accounts for a fourth of Cognizant's total revenue, it makes up about 7 percent of Infosys's revenue.

The latest development is a step back, as the IT giants were asked by a Dallas court, on May 23, to engage and address outstanding issues in the trade secret dispute.

“Contradictory, Gerrymandered market definitions”

According to the filing, in the district court for the northern district of Texas, Dallas division, Infosys’ amended counterclaims remain “legally insufficient” because the firm continues to rely on contradictory market definitions that exclude obvious substitute products.

“As a threshold matter, Infosys’ Amended Counterclaims (filed on January 10) continue to put forward gerrymandered market definitions that rely on contradictory and vague allegations,” the filing read.

Gerrymandered means artificially designed or manipulated to give someone an unfair advantage. In this context, Cognizant is saying Infosys created a distorted or selective market definition in its counterclaims, choosing only the products that make Cognizant look dominant while excluding obvious substitutes.

Also, read: What the Infosys counterclaim says about Cognizant in the TriZetto trade secrets case

Cognizant reminded the court that Infosys’ counterclaims had already been dismissed once on the same grounds, in the filing.

“Trial is set for July 2026,” a source close to the development told Moneycontrol on the condition of anonymity. This is because both parties agree that more time is needed due to the increased scope of this case.

Also, read: Does Cognizant have the upper hand in legal battle against Infosys?

Cognizant’s Spokesperson:

“TriZetto filed this case because Infosys stole its trade secrets and hid its conduct. Infosys manufactured its baseless/misguided/frivolous antitrust claims to distract from its trade secret theft.  The allegations are factually untrue and legally without merit. The Court previously dismissed the claims, but offered Infosys an opportunity to amend its counterclaims.

Infosys’s amended counterclaims are no better than its previous attempt to manufacture antitrust claims, and the Court should dismiss these counterclaims as well.

Infosys complains that it is losing customers to TriZetto’s software products and Cognizant’s IT services, but the things it complains about are nothing more than legitimate competition:

·         Antitrust laws do not give companies like Infosys a right to free-ride off TriZetto’s intellectual property;

·         TriZetto has every right to protect its IP, especially from companies like Infosys who have misappropriated; and

·         Cognizant has every right to hire the best employees in the industry, as it did when appointing Ravi Kumar its CEO in 2023, and with the hiring of other talented industry employees.

It is preposterous to suggest that Cognizant selected its senior leadership in order to snub Infosys. Great leaders are attracted to Cognizant because of its dedication to clients and its track record of innovation. Cognizant’s executive appointments are guided by strategic priorities, business growth, and a commitment to excellence.

Infosys’s amended counterclaims suffer from a host of defects, and we have asked the Court to dismiss these amended counterclaims entirely with prejudice so that the parties and the Court can focus their energy and attention on Infosys’s wrongdoing,” a Cognizant spokesperson said in a statement.

Moneycontrol reached out to Infosys with queries, but the company had not replied as of press time.

Cognizant defends IP protections

Cognizant told the court it has no obligation to give rivals unrestricted access to its IP or software. It argued that clauses in its licensing and non-disclosure agreements are meant to prevent repeat misappropriation of sensitive information.

The company, in the filing, said that even though Infosys calls these clauses anticompetitive, they simply limit how rivals can use TriZetto data and which personnel can access it, and that this is standard practice across software markets.

“Seeking to distract from its own misconduct, Infosys has tried to recast Cognizant’s industry-standard methods of protecting intellectual property, which Infosys’ own conduct underscores the need for, as antitrust violations,” the filing said.

Infosys’ claim that it loses contracts because of these terms does not amount to an antitrust injury, Cognizant said.

“Nothing in the antitrust laws gives one producer a right to sponge off another’s intellectual property,” the filing said, in a sharply worded statement rarely seen in corporate disputes.

It told the court that Infosys continues to win large deals, including one contract worth hundreds of millions of dollars.

Hiring Infosys executives is not anticompetitive, says filing

Infosys had also alleged that Cognizant engaged in “predatory hiring” when it recruited its former president, Kumar, along with two other senior leaders.

Cognizant said hiring competitors’ employees is “per se legal” and pointed out that Infosys has not alleged any facts showing that the executives were hired to harm Infosys or that they acted disloyally.

Infosys has not shown market harm, says Cognizant

Cognizant said Infosys has failed to show any reduction in output or any increase in prices caused by the challenged conduct. It noted that Infosys’ own Helix software continued to gain customers during the period in question and that nothing in the filing shows harm to the market as a whole.

Cognizant has asked the court to dismiss Infosys’ counterclaims with prejudice and to stay discovery until the motion is decided.

Also, reaD: 'Infosys was caught red-handed misappropriating trade secrets', says Cognizant