Originally published on lexsummary.com.
Case: Joby Aero, Inc. v. Archer Aviation Inc., No. 25-cv-10703-SVK (N.D. Cal. June 5, 2026)
Court: United States District Court, Northern District of California (Magistrate Judge Susan van Keulen)
PDF: Download Opinion · GovInfo
Overview
In a high-profile trade secret dispute between two leading electric vertical takeoff and landing (eVTOL) air taxi competitors, the court ruled on three cross-motions to dismiss. Joby Aero accused former employee George Kivork and his new employer Archer Aviation of stealing trade secrets — particularly confidential deal terms from a strategic partnership with a major real estate developer — and using them to poach Joby’s business partner. Archer countersued, alleging that Joby fraudulently concealed its deep ties to China and Chinese government-linked entities while marketing itself as “American-made” to win U.S. military contracts.
Key Holdings
Joby’s Trade Secret Claim (DTSA) — Partially Survives
The court allowed Joby’s federal trade secret claim to proceed as to the “Developer-agreement trade secrets” — the confidential deal terms and negotiation details related to Joby’s strategic partnership with a major real estate developer. The court found that Joby identified these trade secrets with sufficient particularity by pointing to specific files (including one titled “20250116 – [Developer] – Strategic Partnership Counter Proposal”) that Kivork allegedly downloaded two days before announcing his resignation. It was reasonable to infer that Kivork disclosed these secrets to Archer, which then used them to undercut Joby’s deal.
However, the court dismissed with leave to amend three other categories of alleged trade secrets — commercial/regulatory strategy materials, technical eVTOL information, and infrastructure strategies — finding that Joby relied on impermissible “catchall” descriptions and failed to allege any facts showing these categories were actually disclosed or used.
Breach of Contract (PIIA) — Partially Survives
The court found that the confidentiality provision in Kivork’s Proprietary Information and Inventions Agreement was an unenforceable de facto noncompete under California Business & Professions Code Section 16600. The provision barred Kivork from using any business or technical information he learned during employment related to the eVTOL industry, in perpetuity — effectively preventing him from ever working in the field again. That provision was declared void ab initio.
But the court allowed the breach of contract claim to proceed based on the PIIA’s narrower “Item Return” provision, which required Kivork to promptly return all items containing proprietary information upon termination of employment. Defendants did not challenge this provision.
Inducement Claim Against Archer — Dismissed with Leave to Amend
Joby’s claim that Archer induced Kivork’s breach of contract was dismissed. To the extent it relied on the now-voided confidentiality clause, it failed. And as to the Item Return provision, the court found no factual allegations that Archer committed any intentional acts designed to induce Kivork to fail to return Joby’s materials. Joby also failed to allege that Archer had specific knowledge of the PIIA.
State Law Claims (Counts IV-X) — Dismissed Under CUTSA Preemption
The court dismissed all of Joby’s remaining state law claims — including the California computer fraud statute (Penal Code Section 502), breach of fiduciary duty and loyalty, aiding and abetting, and tortious interference — finding them preempted by the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act. All of these claims rested on the same nucleus of facts as the trade secret misappropriation allegations. Counts V through X were dismissed without leave to amend (preemption cannot be cured by repleading), while Counts IV and XI (UCL) were dismissed with leave to amend.
Archer’s Counterclaims (China-Ties Fraud) — Dismissed with Leave to Amend
The court dismissed Archer’s counterclaims — a UCL claim and a Lanham Act false advertising claim alleging that Joby hid its Chinese manufacturing ties and government connections — as impermissible “shotgun pleadings” that failed to comply with Rule 8. The counterclaims were also deficient under Rule 9(b)’s heightened fraud pleading standard: Archer failed to identify who at Joby made the allegedly false statements, failed to allege how specific entities (like AFWERX and NASA) were misled, and did not plead the tariff misclassification allegations with sufficient particularity beyond four identified shipments. Joby Aviation (the parent entity) was also dismissed for failure to adequately plead alter-ego liability. All dismissals were with leave to amend.
What Survives
- Count III (DTSA) as to the Developer-agreement trade secrets — against both Kivork and Archer
- Count I (Breach of Contract) as to the PIIA’s Item Return provision — against Kivork only
What’s Next
The court set an expedited amendment schedule: Joby must amend its complaint by June 22, 2026; Archer must amend its counterclaims by June 29; and responses are due by July 6-13, 2026.
Why It Matters
This decision is significant for several reasons. First, it reinforces California’s strong anti-noncompete policy under Section 16600, striking down an overbroad confidentiality provision that effectively barred an employee from working in the eVTOL industry forever. Second, it illustrates the tension in trade secret pleading between the need to protect secrets and the need to give defendants fair notice — allowing specific, documented allegations to proceed while rejecting vague categorical descriptions. Third, the dismissal of Archer’s China-fraud counterclaims as “shotgun pleadings” signals that courts will demand disciplined, specific fraud allegations even in cases involving hot-button geopolitical issues. The eVTOL industry remains one of the most litigious sectors in aviation, and this case between the two leading American competitors will continue to develop rapidly.