Sixth Circuit Denies Rehearing in $18.3M TransUnion IP Dispute

CINCINNATI, Ohio — The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday declined to revisit its decision to vacate an $18.3 million jury award against TransUnion LLC, marking a significant setback for a startup that accused the credit reporting giant of retaining intellectual property tied to an insurance quote marketplace after their partnership ended.

The dispute stems from a collaboration between TransUnion and the startup, which claimed the company improperly held onto proprietary technology developed during their joint venture. The startup argued that TransUnion’s actions stifled its ability to compete in the marketplace.

In its original ruling, the Sixth Circuit found insufficient evidence to support the jury’s $18.3 million award, prompting the startup to seek a rehearing. The court’s refusal to reconsider the case solidifies its earlier decision, leaving the startup without recourse for the vacated damages.

“We are disappointed by the court’s decision,” said a spokesperson for the startup, who declined to be named. “We believe the evidence clearly demonstrated TransUnion’s misconduct and its impact on our business.”

TransUnion, meanwhile, has maintained its innocence throughout the litigation. “We are pleased with the court’s decision to uphold its ruling,” a company representative said. “This outcome reaffirms our commitment to ethical business practices and the integrity of our partnerships.”

The case highlights the complexities of intellectual property disputes in the rapidly evolving fintech sector, where collaborations between established companies and startups are increasingly common. Legal experts say the ruling could set a precedent for how similar cases are handled in the future.

“This decision underscores the importance of clear contractual agreements when it comes to intellectual property rights,” said Sarah Thompson, a professor of business law at Ohio State University. “Without explicit terms, disputes like this are likely to arise.”

The startup has not yet indicated whether it will pursue further legal action, but industry analysts suggest the case could have broader implications for partnerships between large corporations and smaller innovators.