FOLLOW US

Nvidia Settles Valeo’s Suit, ending a courtroom battle that read like a techno-thriller — complete with alleged stolen code, a job switch and a videoconference slip that pulled back the curtain.

A brief text order filed in California federal court confirms that Valeo Schalter und Sensoren GmbH and Nvidia Corp. reached a settlement resolving all claims in a trade secrets misappropriation case that had been headed for trial in January.

“Counsel informed the court parties reached a settlement agreement that resolves all issues in the case,” the order said.

No terms of the agreement were disclosed.

A Case Built on Code and Coincidence

Valeo sued Nvidia in November 2023, accusing the AI chipmaker of exploiting confidential technology tied to advanced parking and driver assistance systems. At the center of the dispute was a former Valeo engineer whose alleged theft only came to light when a shared screen briefly betrayed him.

Valeo has described itself as the world’s leading driver-assistance supplier, saying its technology equips one out of every three new cars globally. The company said it has invested billions of dollars in advanced driving systems and relies on trade secrets, patents, copyrights and trademarks to protect that work.

Nvidia, Valeo argued, was a relative newcomer to the automotive space, unveiling its Drive platform for autonomous and assisted driving decades after Valeo began shaping the field.

Contract Clash and a Digital Trail

According to the complaint, Nvidia beat Valeo for a contract with a major automaker to develop software powering advanced parking and driving assistance. Valeo, which had supplied that automaker with earlier hardware and software, was retained to provide ultrasonic sensors. The deal required the two companies to collaborate virtually.

Soon after the automaker chose Nvidia, Valeo alleged that then-employee Mohammad Moniruzzaman downloaded Valeo’s entire advanced driving source code without authorization by routing access through his personal email account.

Valeo said Moniruzzaman took tens of thousands of files and roughly 6 gigabytes of source code, along with numerous Word documents, PowerPoint presentations, PDFs and spreadsheets explaining the technology.

From Valeo to Nvidia — and a Screen Share Slip

Moniruzzaman left Valeo in August 2021 to join Nvidia, where he rose to a senior role working on software for the same automaker project, the complaint said.

His actions initially went unnoticed for about six months. That changed during a March 2022 virtual collaboration meeting when Moniruzzaman minimized a shared PowerPoint and briefly exposed a file containing Valeo’s source code.

“So brazen was Mr. Moniruzzaman’s theft, the file path on his screen still read ‘ValeoDocs,’” Valeo alleged.

Participants immediately recognized the code and captured a screenshot. By the time Moniruzzaman realized what had happened, Valeo said, it was too late.

Criminal Conviction Abroad

Valeo said Moniruzzaman was convicted in Germany in September 2023 for unlawful acquisition, use and disclosure of trade secrets and admitted to stealing Valeo’s confidential information.

The civil suit accused Nvidia of violating the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act and the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act, seeking damages and injunctive relief.

Valeo alleged Nvidia tried to “take a shortcut to the marketplace” by leveraging stolen software, warning that unchecked conduct would chill innovation and become a blueprint for corporate espionage.

Nvidia Pushes Back

Nvidia denied all allegations, saying it developed its automotive technology independently and long before Moniruzzaman left Valeo.

“Nvidia did not want or need, and would not have benefited from, Valeo’s alleged trade secrets,” the company said in its January 2024 answer.

Nvidia also argued that key issues had already been litigated in Germany, where Valeo withdrew allegations against Nvidia and a court ordered Valeo to reimburse Nvidia’s costs in October 2023.

The company said its Drive platform takes a fundamentally different approach from Valeo’s products, emphasizing that Valeo does not offer an end-to-end integrated solution, does not make GPUs and “is not an AI pioneer.”

Nvidia said it placed Moniruzzaman on leave and cut off his system access as soon as it learned of Valeo’s claims.

Lawyers and Silence After Settlement

Nvidia denied that Moniruzzaman shared Valeo trade secrets internally or that Nvidia knowingly used any such information, insisting it never needed Valeo’s technology “for any reason.”

Counsel for both companies did not immediately respond to requests for comment late Wednesday.

Valeo is represented by Russell E. Levine, Laura Uhlenhuth and Mark Gillespie of Kirkland & Ellis LLP.
Nvidia is represented by Sean S. Pak, Owen Roberts, Ron Hagiz and Jodie Cheng of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP.

With Nvidia Settles Valeo’s Suit, the case closes without a verdict — ending a saga where a single screen share briefly illuminated one of the most closely guarded currencies in tech: source code.