9th Circuit affirms exclusion of certain evidence in a trade secrets trial but reverses the…
Comet Technologies USA, Inc. v. Xp Power, LLC
Status and record
Your position
Do you support this decision?
An advisory read. Your position on a ruling is citizen opinion; it does not form a citizen mandate and is never a legal appeal.
Civitus citizens
Take a position above to see how verified Civitus citizens are weighing in. Positions stay sealed until you have one of your own.
The Civitus brief
AI analysis
Plain English
9th Circuit affirms exclusion of certain evidence in a trade secrets trial but reverses the overall judgment and orders a new trial due to a flawed jury instruction on burden of proof.
Why it matters
The Ninth Circuit reviewed a trade secret misappropriation case between Comet Technologies and XP Power. The court upheld the trial court's decision to exclude certain evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 403, finding no abuse of discretion, because the evidence had limited probative value and risked confusing the jury. However, the court reversed the overall judgment and sent the case back for a new trial because of an erroneous jury instruction on the burden of proof, as explained in a separate published opinion filed at the same time.
Who it affects
- XP Power
- It is relevant to companies
What happens next
Current
Decision issued Jul 14, 2026
Unpublished opinion
Next
Possible rehearing
Parties can ask the same court to reconsider. Then: possible supreme court petition.
View possible path
- Decision issued Jul 14, 2026Unpublished opinion
- Possible rehearingParties can ask the same court to reconsider.
- Possible Supreme Court petitionThe Supreme Court takes only a small share of petitions.
Citizens vs Court
Civitus citizens
Sealed
Take a counted position to open the tally.
Appellate court
Decision issued
Jul 14, 2026 · Unpublished opinion
Take a position above to open the comparison.
A comparison of public sentiment with the ruling. Courts are not subject to a citizen mandate, and judges are not elected representatives.
Take action
Courts decide cases; Congress can respond with legislation. Telling your representative is the civic lever here.
Public discussion
Add a tag
Citizen opinion on this ruling, not a rehearing of the case. Similar opinions on this case can open a solution poll.
3 similar opinions open a solution poll
Loading opinions
Deeper context
Long-form analysis, legal background, and source material
Read analysisAnalysis · Source
DEEPER READ
This case arose from a lawsuit in which Comet Technologies accused XP Power of misappropriating trade secrets. After a trial, both sides appealed various aspects of the district court's rulings. The Ninth Circuit addressed two main issues in this memorandum: whether the trial court properly excluded certain evidence XP Power offered, and whether the overall judgment should stand. On the evidentiary question, XP Power wanted to introduce evidence suggesting that an employee named Mason had taken trade secrets from a third company, Advanced Energy, to Comet before later moving to XP Power. XP argued this evidence was relevant to whether Comet actually owned the trade secrets it claimed were stolen. The trial court excluded this evidence under Rule 403, which allows judges to keep out evidence when its potential to confuse the jury or cause unfair prejudice substantially outweighs its usefulness. The Ninth Circuit agreed with the trial court, finding the excluded evidence amounted to innuendo about Comet's own possible wrongdoing against Advanced Energy, a party that had not participated in the case. Allowing it in would have risked a confusing mini-trial over facts involving a third party. Despite affirming the evidentiary ruling, the Ninth Circuit reversed the judgment entirely and ordered a new trial. The reason was a separate, more fundamental error: the jury was given an incorrect instruction about which party bore the burden of proof. The details of that ruling appear in a companion published opinion filed the same day. Judge Hamilton, sitting by designation from the Seventh Circuit, dissented on the evidentiary issue. In his view, the excluded evidence was highly probative on the essential question of whether Comet actually owned all of the trade secrets it claimed. He argued that the Defend Trade Secrets Act requires a plaintiff to be an owner with rightful legal or equitable title, so evidence that another company may have owned some of the secrets was directly relevant. He also noted that the trial court had originally denied Comet's motion to exclude such evidence before reversing itself mid-trial, and he believed the majority underestimated how probative the evidence was while overestimating the risk of jury confusion.
CITATION AND RECORD
Record source: CourtListener
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 14 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT COMET TECHNOLOGIES USA, INC., a Nos. 23-15601, 23-15709, 25-745 Delaware corporation; COMET, AG, a Swiss corporation; YXLON INTERNATIONAL, D.C. No. 5:20-CV-06408-NC GMBH, a German corporation, Plaintiffs – Appellees/ MEMORANDUM* Cross-Appellants, v. XP POWER, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company, Defendant – Appellant/ Cross-Appellee. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Nathanael M. Cousins, Magistrate Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted September 19, 2025 San Francisco, California Before: HAMILTON, R. NELSON, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.** Dissent by Judge HAMILTON. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The Honorable David F. Hamilton, United States Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, sitting by designation. XP Power and Comet Technologies appeal the judgment following a trial for misappropriation of trade secrets. In the published opinion filed concurrently with this memorandum disposition, we vacate the judgment and remand for a new trial because of an erroneous jury instruction on the burden of proof. Here, we affirm the district court’s evidentiary rulings excluding certain evidence offered by XP under Federal Rule of Evidence 403. We are “highly deferential” to a district court’s evidentiary rulings under Rule 403. Microsoft Corp. v. Motorola, Inc., 795 F.3d 1024, 1056 (9th Cir. 2015) (quoting Boyd v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 576 F.3d 938, 949 (9th Cir. 2009)). We reverse only if the district court’s decision was “manifestly erroneous and prejudicial.” Orr v. Bank of America, NT & SA, 285 F.3d 764, 773 (9th Cir. 2002). When we can glean a reasonable basis to support the district court’s evidentiary rulings, we leave them undisturbed. The district court did not abuse its discretion here. On appeal, XP does not challenge the denial of leave to amend its answer to raise an unclean hands defense based on Mason’s newly discovered hard drives or the grant of summary judgment to Comet on an unclean hands defense on the theories XP timely raised. The excluded evidence, which XP contended showed Mason first took secrets from Advanced Energy to Comet before moving on to XP, went “more to that defense than to any other issue,” as the district court said at trial. 2 23-15601, 23-15709, 25-745 It had only limited probative value on the issue of ownership. The excluded expert opinions and testimony show only that Advanced Energy used similar elements or similarly named elements in some of its designs. Mason’s resume and testimony likewise show merely that Mason’s previous work included a tuning approach he denied using at Comet and that a PowerPoint presentation contained information that he had used at Advanced Energy but did not use at XP. In short, the excluded evidence amounted to innuendo and insinuations that Comet, too, had engaged in trade-secret infringement, this time against Advanced Energy. And this theory and the evidence supporting it had been excluded by the district court. Given the evidence’s limited probative value and the district court’s concerns about a significant likelihood of jury confusion, the district court’s exclusion of the challenged evidence appears reasonable rather than “manifestly erroneous.” Orr, 285 F.3d at 773. Litigating the relationship between Advanced Energy and Comet’s trade secrets was also likely to create a “confusing mini-trial” requiring the resolution of facts against a third party that had not participated in discovery. United States v. Tsarnaev, 595 U.S. 302, 321 (2022). Accordingly, the district court did not err by excluding evidence under Rule 403 regarding Advanced Energy’s possible ownership of disputed technology. For the reasons set forth in the published opinion filed concurrently herewith, however, the judgment of the district court is REVERSED and REMANDED. 3 23-15601, 23-15709, 25-745 FILED JUL 14 2026 Comet Technologies, Inc. v. XP Power LLC, Nos. 23-15601, 23-15709, 25-745 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK HAMILTON, Circuit Judge, dissenting: U.S. COURT OF APPEALS I respectfully dissent on the issue of the exclusion of evidence tending to show that Advanced Energy was actually the owner of some of the trade secrets claimed by Comet in this case. We give district courts a great deal of deference in applying Rule 403, but there are limits. Here the district court went too far by excluding highly probative evidence on an essential element of Comet’s claims, whether it owned all of the trade secrets at issue in this case. The district court underestimated the probative value of the evidence and exaggerated the risk of juror confusion about a different issue the jury was never going to hear. 1. To seek relief under the Defend Trade Secrets Act, a plaintiff must be an “owner” with “rightful legal or equitable title” to the trade secrets. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 1836(b)(1), 1839(4) (emphasis added). That is, Comet cannot recover under the DTSA for the theft of trade secrets it did not lawfully develop or acquire. Cf. DTM Research, L.L.C. v. AT&T Corp., 245 F.3d 327, 331–33 (4th Cir. 2001) (plaintiff’s mere possession sufficient under Maryland law). Ownership remained a live issue and part of Comet’s burden of proof throughout the entire case, even after it won summary judgment on the unclean hands defense. The district court recognized as much before trial when it denied Comet’s motion in limine to exclude evidence of ownership by third parties. The court should have stood by that ruling during the trial rather than reversing itself. 1 23-15601, 23-15709, 25-745 2. The excluded evidence was highly probative of ownership. Comet’s redactions on appeal belie the idea that the evidence concerned only “similar elements or similarly named elements,” as the majority asserts. Comet identifies a particular sensor as a “perfect example” of mere similarity and asserts that it “did not argue that all [] sensors constituted a trade secret—rather that its particular [] sensor was part of Trade Secret E.” Appellee’s Br. at 48. The excluded evidence showed that Mason worked on that sensor while he worked at Advanced Energy, before he joined Comet. Little more can be said about the sensor, or indeed about much of the rest of the excluded evidence, however, because so many of the details are sealed. To that point, Comet has insisted that the mere name of this sensor is so sensitive that every mention of it had to be redacted from the briefs on appeal. In its motion to seal portions of XP’s opening brief, Comet wrote that its “interest in protecting its confidential and proprietary trade secrets outweighs the public’s interest in access to the information,” and Comet assured us that it “narrowly tailored
Sources
- Official opinionPrimary record
Public record. Timeline facts only; no accusation of wrongdoing. Advisory citizen opinion does not form a citizen mandate.