Cognizant accuses Infy of ‘fishing expedition’

Bengaluru: In a new development in the ongoing Infosys-Cognizant trade secrets dispute, recent legal filings from Cognizant have revealed that Infosys‘s counterclaims do not accuse CEO Ravi Kumar of any anticompetitive behaviour following his transition to Cognizant in 2023.In its submission to the court, the Nasdaq-listed firm said that Infosys’s actions amounted to a ‘fishing expedition’, causing undue burden and inconvenience to both Kumar and Cognizant. Cognizant argued that Infosys has not presented evidence suggesting Kumar undermined the progress of its healthcare platform, Helix.Cognizant’s legal team maintains that all claims advanced by Infosys pertain solely to Kumar’s period at Infosys, not his tenure at Cognizant.

The filing further asserts that Infosys’s request for documents from Kumar’s time at Cognizant—after raising concerns over trade secrets and invoking non-compete agreements—is without legal merit.Cognizant had acquired the healthcare software business TriZetto for $2.7 billion in 2014. TriZetto’s flagship products, Facets and QNXT, process health insurance claims for millions across the US, relying on confidential trade secrets.

Cognizant alleges that Infosys misused these secrets to create its own test case library for Facets, putting it in direct and allegedly unfair competition with TriZetto. Infosys, in turn, has made counterclaims, accusing Cognizant of hindering its development of a rival platform.According to Infosys’s lawsuit, Kumar, a former president at the company, was the principal executive sponsor of Helix and actively supported its rollout during his tenure.

Infosys further claims that Cognizant’s anti competitive tactics, aimed at impeding Helix’s market launch, included the targeted hiring of senior executives central to the Helix project and incentivising them to delay or obstruct Helix’s development and marketing shortly before their departures.In its recent filing, Cognizant stated it has identified numerous individuals with relevant knowledge of the matter and made them available as custodians for the legal process.

“Infosys adopts a fundamentally flawed assumption that CEOs are subject to discovery routinely in antitrust cases; that is simply incorrect,” the document showed. Cognizant argued that Infosys has not demonstrated any direct link between Kumar’s Cognizant documents and its claims, nor attempted to seek information through alternative avenues.

It also highlighted Infosys’s refusal to fulfil requests for all email communications regarding Kumar’s departure from Infosys.Cognizant concluded that Infosys has not produced any substantive proof that Kumar hindered the development of Helix for Cognizant’s benefit, stating: “Infosys’s demand for broad discovery into Mr. Kumar’s documents (and a subsequent prolonged, distracting deposition) is not intended to unearth relevant evidence. Rather, it can only be viewed as a fishing expedition causing oppression, inconvenience, and burden to Mr.

Kumar and Cognizant.” An email sent to Infosys and Cognizant on the development didn’t elicit a response till the time of going to the press.