Blog: BORIS for SolidWorks - Secure Your CAD Designs

Ford v. InterMotive: What the $13.2 Million Supplier Trade Secret Appeal Means for SOLIDWORKS Teams | SolidWorks | Register and Certify IP of CAD design

2026-10-24 14:36 News
On 22 October 2026, Ford asked a three-judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit to overturn or cut a $13.2 million jury award to InterMotive, a much smaller supplier that says Ford took its idea for a vehicle interface module. Reports of the hearing describe a skeptical panel. No ruling has been issued yet.
The case is about trucks, not CAD software. But the story behind it will feel familiar to any SOLIDWORKS team that has ever pitched a design to a large customer. A supplier builds a product, signs a confidentiality agreement with a big OEM, shares a specification and a prototype, and is then told the OEM is not interested. A few years later, the OEM sells its own version under the same product name.
A Michigan jury sided with the supplier in 2023, and the trial judge upheld the verdict in September 2025. The appeal now tests two questions that matter to every design shop: does protection end when the NDA's confidentiality period runs out, and can a combination of known features be a trade secret? Here is what the court records say and what SOLIDWORKS users should change in how they share designs.
TL;DR: the NDA expired, the trade secret claim did not

InterMotive shared its Upfitter Interface Module work with Ford under a confidentiality agreement signed on 29 November 2011, with a two-year confidentiality period. Ford later launched its own module with the same name. In 2023 a jury awarded InterMotive $13,209,300 under Michigan trade secret law, plus $349,867 for unfair competition. Ford argues the information no longer merits protection, and the Sixth Circuit heard the appeal on 22 October 2026. For SOLIDWORKS teams the lesson is practical: mark what you share, share only what the customer needs, and keep dated records of what you designed, what you disclosed and when.

What happened at the Sixth Circuit on 22 October 2026?

Ford's appeal was argued before a three-judge panel in the Sixth Circuit, the federal appeals court that covers Michigan. According to Law360's report of the hearing, the judges questioned whether Ford should have to give up $13.2 million in profits from a vehicle interface module after a jury found it misappropriated a supplier's trade secrets. They also pressed on whether the award included profits from features that had nothing to do with the disputed technology.
Ford's position, as reported the same day, has two parts. First, it says the confidential information at issue no longer merits protection. Second, it challenges the damages method, which counted the full profit linked to its module. MT Newswires and other outlets described the panel as skeptical of Ford's arguments.
No ruling has been issued, and reports gave no date for one. Until the court rules, the September 2025 judgment stands.

How did a supplier's module end up in Ford trucks?

The background below comes from Judge Terrence G. Berg's opinion of 30 September 2025 in the Eastern District of Michigan (case 4:17-cv-11584, see the court docket). These are the facts the jury heard and the judge summarised:
  • 2010: InterMotive launches its Upfitter Interface Module (UIM), a programmable plug-and-play module that helps upfitters connect their equipment to a vehicle when they turn pickups and vans into work trucks.
  • 29 November 2011: Ford and InterMotive sign a Confidential Disclosure Agreement with a six-month disclosure term and a two-year confidentiality period. The duty to protect the information ends on 29 November 2013.
  • March 2012: InterMotive builds a Ford-specific Phase 1 module for the NTEA work truck show and writes a Phase 2 specification.
  • December 2012: InterMotive delivers a Phase 2 prototype marked as confidential.
  • Early 2013: Ford says it will not develop its own module. In summer 2013 it sends its own module specification to other potential suppliers.
  • 2016: At the NTEA show, Ford announces its own "Upfitter Interface Module" for several 2017 vehicles and starts offering it.
Ford sued first in 2017, claiming InterMotive used the Ford blue oval trademark without permission, and later dropped that claim before the jury could decide it. InterMotive counterclaimed for trade secret misappropriation and trademark infringement. The jury trial ran from 18 October to 1 November 2023.

What did the jury and the judge decide?

The jury found that Ford misappropriated InterMotive's trade secret under the Michigan Uniform Trade Secrets Act and awarded $13,209,300, measured as Ford's profits on the module. It awarded nothing on Ford's vehicle profits. On the trademark side, it found that InterMotive owns a valid trademark in the name "Upfitter Interface Module", that Ford's infringement was willful, and it awarded $0 for trademark infringement and $349,867 for unfair competition.
InterMotive had asked for much more. At trial it argued for a share of the profit on every Ford truck sold with the module, which ran to hundreds of millions of dollars. The parties agreed that 92,365 vehicles carried the module, and the two damages experts put the profit per module at $143 (Ford's expert) and $176 (InterMotive's expert). By our arithmetic, the jury's figure works out to about $143 per module. In August 2024 the judge also refused InterMotive's request to raise the unfair competition award to $15 million.
In September 2025, Judge Berg denied Ford's motions for judgment as a matter of law and for a new trial. InterMotive's law firm reported that the court added about $3 million in prejudgment interest, part of its legal fees and earlier discovery sanctions, for a judgment of over $16 million, and granted a permanent injunction on the product name. Ford now calls its module the Vehicle Integration System.

Why can a combination of known features be a trade secret?

InterMotive defined its trade secret as "the use of programmable inputs in a device like the Upfitter Interface Module." Ford argued that programmable inputs were generally known and pointed to earlier devices. The judge compared each earlier device with the claimed secret, much like a patent prior art check, and found that none of them practised the full combination. Ford's evidence, taken together, disclosed every element, but no single piece disclosed the combination in one product.
Under Michigan law, the court said, "a new combination of known steps or processes can be entitled to trade secret protection." It also rejected Ford's argument that a product idea cannot have value from secrecy because selling the product reveals it. A working prototype that a customer has not yet seen can still be worth something because it is secret.
This is the part that matters most to engineers. Most real designs are combinations of known parts, features and methods. If you have read our guide to trade secret protection for CAD files, you know that the value often sits in how the pieces fit together, not in any single feature. The InterMotive rulings show a court and a jury taking that seriously.

Did the expired NDA end InterMotive's protection?

This is Ford's main argument on appeal. The confidentiality duty in the 2011 agreement expired on 29 November 2013, and InterMotive later released a product with programmable inputs in 2014. Ford says that, after those dates, there was nothing left to protect.
Judge Berg did not accept that as a matter of law. He said whether the information stayed secret, and whether InterMotive took reasonable steps to keep it secret, were disputed facts for the jury, and the jury decided them against Ford. The jury had been told that InterMotive had to show it took reasonable efforts under the circumstances to keep the technology secret. The appeal will decide whether that approach holds.
Whatever the Sixth Circuit decides, a short NDA is a weak shield for a design that stays valuable for years. We explain why in NDA limitations for CAD files: confidentiality periods end, scope is often vague, and an NDA does nothing to prove what you designed and when. InterMotive could still argue its case because it had more than the NDA: marked prototypes, dated specifications, show records and sales history.
Keep dated proof of every design you share.

BORIS for SOLIDWORKS registers your parts, assemblies and drawings with a blockchain timestamp and a certificate of ownership, right from SOLIDWORKS, before they leave your company.

👉 See how BORIS for SOLIDWORKS works

What does this mean for SOLIDWORKS teams that pitch to big customers?

Many SOLIDWORKS users work for suppliers and startups whose best customers are much larger companies. Pitching a design means sending something: a STEP file, an eDrawings file, a PDF drawing, a prototype or a specification. Our guide to sharing CAD files with suppliers covers the mechanics. The InterMotive case adds the legal side: what you can prove later depends on what you recorded at the time.
What InterMotive could showWhy it matteredThe SOLIDWORKS equivalent
Signed confidentiality agreement (29 Nov 2011)Set the terms of the disclosure and a clear start dateNDA filed with the project, with its end date tracked in PDM or your CRM
Prototype marked as confidential (Dec 2012)Showed the supplier treated it as secret"Confidential" custom property, title block note and watermark on every shared drawing and PDF
Dated Phase 2 specification (March 2012)Showed what existed and whenPDM versions with dates, plus an independent timestamp of the released files
Product launched in 2010, before the talksShowed the idea came from the supplierRegistered first versions of your parts and assemblies, before any customer meeting
Sales records from 2012 to 2016Supported the trademark and damages caseQuote, order and shipment records linked to part numbers
Ford's own 2014 email about the product nameSupported the willfulness findingSaved customer emails and meeting notes, stored with the project
Two more points from the case are worth noting. The judge observed that Ford refused to produce customer information during discovery, which affected how damages could be estimated. Litigation often turns on which side kept better records. And the case has run for about nine years since the first lawsuit in 2017, so records you create today must stay readable for a long time. Our article on evidence requirements in CAD IP litigation explains what courts usually look for.

What should SOLIDWORKS teams do now?

  1. Read the confidentiality period, not just the title. Before you share, check how long the NDA protects your information. If the design will be valuable for longer, ask for a longer period or share less.
  2. Share the minimum geometry. Use the SOLIDWORKS Defeature tool or an envelope model to send outer shapes and interfaces instead of full native parts. A STEP export drops the feature tree, which is often where the know-how sits.
  3. Mark everything you send. Add a "Confidential" custom property, a title block note and a watermark on PDFs and drawings. A marked prototype helped InterMotive show it treated its work as secret.
  4. Keep a disclosure log. Record who received which file version, on which date and under which agreement. A simple table in PDM or your project folder is enough.
  5. Timestamp before you share. Register released parts, assemblies and drawings with an independent, dated record before the first customer meeting, so you can show the design existed first.
  6. Save the conversation. Store emails, meeting notes and customer feedback with the project. Ford's own 2014 email about the product name became evidence.
  7. Protect your product names. If a name matters, register it as a trademark and use it consistently. InterMotive's registered name supported its unfair competition award. Our guide to copyright, patents and trademarks for 3D models explains the differences.
For the wider supplier picture, see supplier collaboration security in manufacturing, our automotive CAD protection requirements, and the contract manufacturer case study on building supplier trust.

How does this compare with other recent trade secret rulings?

Last week we covered the Daikin v. Russo ruling in Massachusetts, where the state's highest court said trade secret owners no longer get a presumption of irreparable harm when they seek a preliminary injunction. Owners now have to prove harm with evidence.
The InterMotive case points the same way: the supplier won because a jury believed its evidence. If you are preparing for a dispute, start with how to handle IP disputes over CAD designs and CAD file ownership documentation requirements.

How does this fit the bigger picture for CAD users?

Across our network this week, the common thread is records: who can reach your engineering data and what you can prove about it later:
Yesterday we also looked at TraceParts joining the KEYENCE Group and what supplier part libraries record about your downloads. Whether you download parts or share your own, the same rule applies: know what leaves your company, and keep proof of what is yours.

Conclusion

The Sixth Circuit may cut, keep or overturn the $13.2 million award, and the answer could shape how courts treat expired NDAs. But the useful lessons for SOLIDWORKS teams do not depend on the ruling.
InterMotive could fight back because it had signed terms, marked prototypes, dated specifications and sales records. Share less, mark what you share, log every disclosure and keep independent, dated proof of your designs from the first version onwards.
Make your SOLIDWORKS designs provably yours.

BORIS for SOLIDWORKS adds blockchain timestamps and certificates of ownership to your CAD files, so you can show what you designed and when, long after an NDA has expired.

👉 Get BORIS for SOLIDWORKS

FAQ: Ford v. InterMotive and sharing designs with customers

What is Ford v. InterMotive about?

InterMotive, the maker of the Upfitter Interface Module, says Ford misused trade secrets it shared during business talks in 2011 and 2012, and then sold its own module under the same name from 2016. A Michigan jury agreed in 2023 and awarded $13,209,300 for trade secret misappropriation plus $349,867 for unfair competition.

When did the Sixth Circuit hear Ford's appeal?

On 22 October 2026. Reports described the three-judge panel as skeptical of Ford's arguments. No decision has been issued, and no date for a ruling has been announced.

What does Ford argue on appeal?

Ford argues that the confidential information no longer merits protection, pointing to the expiry of the confidentiality agreement in November 2013, and that the damages wrongly included the full profit linked to its module.

Does a trade secret end when the NDA expires?

Not automatically. In this case the trial judge said whether the information stayed secret and whether reasonable secrecy steps were taken were questions for the jury. The appeal may clarify this, so do not rely on an expired NDA alone.

Can a combination of known features be a trade secret?

Yes, under Michigan law as applied here. The court said a new combination of known steps or processes can be protected, and found that no earlier device practised InterMotive's full combination.

How should I share SOLIDWORKS files with a potential customer?

Share the minimum needed, such as defeatured geometry or neutral STEP files, mark every file and drawing as confidential, log who received which version and when, and keep the native files and feature history in-house.

How can I prove my design existed before I shared it?

Keep PDM version history, save the exact files you sent, and register released versions with an independent timestamp. BORIS for SOLIDWORKS adds a blockchain timestamp and a certificate of ownership to each registered file.