Palantir Sues Percepta CEO With The "Copycat" Startup Scandal
- Palantir has sued Percepta AI CEO Hirsh Jain and two other former employees for allegedly poaching staff and stealing trade secrets to build a rival firm.
- The lawsuit cites incriminating text messages about "pillaging" developers and accuses one defendant of photographing confidential documents before resigning.
- Percepta denies the claims, calling them "baseless bullying," while Palantir seeks a court order to bar the defendants from working at the startup for one year.
Palantir Technologies is escalating its legal battle against Percepta AI, a rival startup founded by its former employees. In a lawsuit filed in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York, Palantir accuses Percepta CEO Hirsh Jain and co founder Radha Jain of orchestrating a widespread scheme to poach its top talent and steal proprietary information. The complaint alleges that the defendants violated their non solicitation agreements by aggressively recruiting Palantir engineers to build a "copycat" company. This legal action expands upon an initial suit filed in October, which targeted Radha Jain and another former employee, Joanna Cohen, for similar contract breaches.
The lawsuit paints a picture of deliberate corporate sabotage. Palantir claims that Hirsh Jain, who previously led the company's healthcare portfolio, launched a calculated campaign to "pillage" Palantir's workforce after his departure in August 2024. The filing cites text messages allegedly sent by Hirsh Jain expressing his intent to target the best developers when they were "at their maximum richness." Another message attributed to Radha Jain reportedly said, "God thinking about poaching is so fun." Palantir asserts that these communications prove the defendants knowingly disregarded their legal obligations to fuel Percepta's growth at their former employer's expense.
Beyond recruitment, the suit levels serious accusations of intellectual property theft. Joanna Cohen is accused of sending herself highly confidential documents and photographing sensitive information from her work computer before resigning in March 2025. Palantir alleges that this data included "crown jewels" such as source code, customer workflows, and proprietary engagement strategies. The company claims these stolen assets gave Percepta an unfair advantage, allowing it to secure contracts with potential Palantir clients and generate millions in revenue shortly after launching.
Percepta has vehemently denied these allegations, dismissing the lawsuit as "baseless" and a "fear tactic" designed to stifle competition. In a statement, the startup argued that its business model is fundamentally different from Palantir's and accused the data giant of cherry picking quotes out of context. Percepta emphasized that Palantir "does not own the AI transformation space" and maintained that it has never used any of Palantir's confidential information. Despite these denials, Cohen and Radha Jain have agreed to temporarily stop working for Percepta while the legal proceedings unfold.
The conflict highlights the fierce competition in the AI sector, where talent and trade secrets are fiercely guarded assets. Palantir, a defense contractor valued at nearly $450 billion, views Percepta's actions as a direct threat to its dominance. The company is seeking a court order to force the return of all confidential materials and to bar the defendants from working at Percepta or its backer, General Catalyst, for 12 months.
The outcome of this case could have significant implications for employee mobility and startup culture in Silicon Valley. Palantir's aggressive legal stance signals a zero tolerance policy towards former employees who become competitors. If successful, the lawsuit could set a precedent for how non solicitation agreements are enforced in the high stakes world of artificial intelligence.
Ultimately, this legal feud is about more than just a few employees; it is a battle for control over the future of AI innovation. Palantir is determined to protect its intellectual property and market position, while Percepta is fighting for its right to exist and compete. As the case moves forward, the tech industry will be watching closely to see where the line is drawn between fair competition and corporate theft.