Status of The Appian Lawsuit

Supreme Court of Virginia Fully and Unanimously Confirms the Many Errors Found by the Intermediate Court of Appeals of Virginia Granting Pega a New Trial

The Latest

On Thursday, January 8, 2026, the Supreme Court of Virginia fully and unanimously agreed with the many errors found by the Appellate Court, requiring a new trial on both alleged trade secret misappropriation and inflated damages.

This decision reinforces our position that there were serious flaws in this case, including:

1. Giving the jury an instruction that improperly shifted the burden of proof on damages to Pega.
2. Limiting Pega's ability to present evidence in response to Appian's requested damages.
3. Preventing Pega from showing evidence that its software did not incorporate Appian's alleged trade secrets.
4. Telling the jury that evidence about how many people had access to Appian’s trade secrets was “not relevant.”

Pega Statement on Latest Decision

“We are pleased that the Supreme Court of Virginia fully and unanimously agreed that there was reversible error in the trial court. In a future retrial, we’ll be able to introduce important evidence that was precluded, and the burden of proof will be properly placed on Appian.”

What’s Next

We look forward to a new trial that applies the proper legal standards and ensures a new jury can consider the fact that Appian freely shared its software with thousands of parties, among other important issues. The court’s decision was unanimous, but Appian could nevertheless petition for a rehearing.

In the meantime, we remain steadfast in our commitment to helping clients and partners achieve transformative business outcomes. This is reflected in our continued innovation, strong financial performance, exceptional client loyalty, deep partner relationships, and recognition from leading industry analysts.

Email to Pega Employees on Latest Decision - January 8, 2026

Team Pega: 

I’m excited to share another major win in our trade secret litigation with Appian. Today, the Supreme Court of Virginia issued a judgment unanimously affirming what the appellate court previously recognized – that the trial and resulting $2 billion verdict were fundamentally flawed. We’ve consistently said we’re confident we’d be vindicated in a fair trial, and today’s result takes us one step closer to that outcome.

As you may recall, in 2024, a Virginia appellate court unanimously vacated the flawed trade secrets trial, overturned the resulting $2 billion verdict and ordered a new trial. Appian then appealed to the Supreme Court of Virginia, and we countered by raising our own issues for appeal.

The Supreme Court’s decision today rejected every aspect of Appian’s appeal from the intermediate court. But, as expected, Appian is already spinning today’s opinion (and rehashing events only related to the $1 claim we chose not to appeal) even though the trade secrets trial is completely reversed. Make no mistake: today’s decision reinforces our position that there was significant error including:

1. Giving the jury an instruction that improperly shifted the burden of proof on damages to Pega.
2. Limiting Pega's ability to present evidence in response to Appian's requested damages.
3. Preventing Pega from showing evidence that its software did not incorporate Appian's alleged trade secrets.
4. Telling the jury that evidence about how many people had access to Appian’s trade secrets was “not relevant.”

The Supreme Court wasn’t comfortable weighing in on the existence of trade secrets, as they allowed that to be a question for a new jury after an error-free trial. But they did state that even the old trial evidence didn’t ensure a favorable verdict in Appian favor.

I want to express my gratitude for your continued focus and professionalism throughout this process. We’ve consistently delivered on our goals and provided innovative solutions to clients and partners – thanks to your dedication.

As this litigation continues, please remember that this is being handled by Pega’s Legal Department and outside counsel. You should not speculate about the merits or outcome of the case. If you need help answering any questions, send them to [email protected] and we will get back to you as soon as possible. If you receive a media inquiry about this development or the litigation more broadly, please forward to Lisa Pintchman [[email protected]] or Sean Audet [[email protected]].

As we look ahead, we will continue to do what we do best – help our clients drive true transformation in their business!!    

Best,  

Ken [Stillwell, Chief Operating Officer and Chief Financial Officer, Pega]

Pega's Position

As we’ve said consistently – and both the Supreme Court of Virginia and the Court of Appeals of Virginia have now found – there were significant flaws underlying the trial court's unprecedented outcome.

As we’ve repeatedly stated and outside experts have agreed, there were significant errors in the trial.

There are no “trade secrets” in this case.

Appian failed the basic threshold requirement of keeping a “trade secret” secret, forfeiting the right to legal protection for these supposed secrets. The company marketed and made its platform available to thousands upon thousands of people, often without any confidentiality requirements and often without even knowing the identities of the people who were given demonstrations of its software. Appian also gave explicit permission to software resellers to freely demonstrate its platform to anyone they wished. These potential customers were free to take unlimited screenshots and videos of these demos and to share them however they liked.

This is also a software case without the software. 

At trial, Pega hotly disputed that anything from Appian was copied into our platform – and we were prepared to prove it to the jury, by demonstrating earlier versions of our platform. But the trial court incorrectly prevented that from happening, so the jury didn’t get the chance to see it for themselves.

Appian’s characterizations of the facts in this case have been consistently misleading. 

A technology staffing firm connected Pega’s former (now Appian’s current) head of competitive intelligence with a part-time consultant who provided occasional demonstrations and discussions of Appian’s commonly available platform over the course of 18 months. The consultant was simply one of thousands of individuals using Appian’s platform to create apps; he had no inside access to their platform beyond what every user of Appian software could already see.

At the trial, Appian had to acknowledge that its platform had severe weaknesses—including data loss.

Appian claimed these weaknesses—what they referred to as “sensitive structural limitations of Appian’s platform”—were in fact legitimate trade secrets. We disagree and think it is healthy for customers to understand any "sensitive structural limitations."

Appian questions Pega’s decision not to contest a $1 judgment.

Both Appian and the jury agreed that the value of the claims under the Virginia Computer Crimes Act (VCCA) amounted to a mere $1 award. We won’t waste the appellate court’s time with this and will stay laser focused on the legal errors we covered in our appeal.

There are no limits on how Pega develops, sells, or provides service on our products, now or in the future.

Appian withdrew its request for such restrictions, and there is no impact on Pega’s products or what we can sell and service.