Kalpana Srinivasan

Last year Srinivasan attained the biggest win in the history of her firm, Susman Godfrey: $706.2 million from a unanimous 12-member Texas state jury for her data analytics start-up, HouseCanary Inc., in a trade secrets battle with a rival formerly known as Title Source Inc.

In early 2019 the trial judge confirmed the award in full and added fees and costs that brought the total to more than $740 million. Title Source Inc. v. HouseCanary Inc., 2016CI06300 (Tex. 73d Jud. Dist. Ct., filed April 12, 2016). Title Source, now known as Amrock Inc., has appealed.

"It was a great feeling to get a great result," Srinivasan, who served as co-lead counsel.

She won the big judgment on a counterclaim, despite Title Source's contract allegations in the original complaint.

"Perhaps they thought that by filing suit the trade secrets stuff would not come to light," Srinivasan said.

Title Source contended it did not have a competing automated appraisal model, and that it had never used information it had obtained from HouseCanary to develop one.

But in discovery, her team discovered a presentation Title Source had made at a technology conference titled "Title Source Automated Valuation Model."

"It tells you something about the atmospherics of deceit in the case. We moved to compel the production of documents about what they said didn't exist," Srinivasan said. "It was a fortuitous find, and all this happened shortly before trial."

In the courtroom, Srinivasan and her team had the chance to question Title Source witnesses who had sworn in depositions that the product at issue did not exist.

"They had sworn up and down to the contrary, and now they had to re-craft their positions," Srinivasan said. "Their key witnesses could be clearly impeached. There really were no shades of gray."

As the counterclaimant, at trial Srinivasan and her team went second. "We tried to be mindful to present our issues efficiently to a jury that had already sat through weeks of trial," she said. "We had already established a lot of our important points during their case in chief, so even though we had a large alternative claim, we could streamline our case."

Her opponent's arguments fell flat with jurors.

"Largely the just said they developed the software on their own and it didn't have much value," Srinivasan said. "I never try to project the jury's thinking, but obviously they understood the basic credibility issues at play."

The jury deliberated only a few hours. At one point they telegraphed their thinking by sending the judge a note asking whether they could award more punitive damages than Srinivasan sought.

"We were thrilled that they saw what was going on," she said.

-- John Roemer