Google has filed a lawsuit against a former employee who allegedly stole confidential information about custom chips used in Pixel phones before taking a job at a Chinese tech company.
The lawsuit, filed in Texas federal court, accuses the ex-engineer of downloading thousands of files containing proprietary details about Google's semiconductor designs and artificial intelligence technology while still employed at the company.
According to court documents, the engineer downloaded sensitive technical specifications and trade secrets related to Google's custom Tensor chips, which power its flagship Pixel smartphones. The files reportedly contained information about chip architecture, AI algorithms, and internal performance data.
Google claims the former employee took the confidential materials just before accepting a position at a Chinese semiconductor firm. The tech giant alleges this was a calculated move to provide competitive advantages to their rival.
The case highlights growing tensions around protecting intellectual property in the highly competitive mobile chip industry. Custom processors like Google's Tensor series represent major investments in research and development aimed at differentiating smartphone products.
Google is seeking financial damages and a court order to prevent further disclosure of its trade secrets. The company also wants the ex-engineer to return all confidential materials.
This lawsuit reflects increasing efforts by U.S. tech companies to guard semiconductor technology amid rising competition from Chinese firms. Similar cases have emerged as engineers move between companies in the tightly connected chip industry.
The identity of the former employee and the Chinese company involved have not been publicly disclosed. Google declined to comment on ongoing litigation but emphasized its commitment to protecting proprietary innovations.
Industry analysts note that custom mobile processors are becoming increasingly valuable assets as smartphone makers seek to optimize performance and AI capabilities. The outcome of this case could influence how tech companies approach intellectual property security.