Executives at Percepta AI are actively fighting a lawsuit filed by defense technology giant Palantir. The leaders of this artificial intelligence startup have made a strong claim. They say Palantir's legal action over alleged employee poaching and information theft is nothing more than an attempt to stifle healthy competition.
Percepta's Legal Defense Against Palantir
In a new court filing reviewed by CNBC, lawyers representing the Percepta defendants presented their arguments. They stated clearly that Palantir is trying to scare other employees from leaving the company. Furthermore, they accused Palantir of attempting to destroy Percepta before the startup can grow any further.
Denial of Poaching and Theft Allegations
The three Percepta executives involved in this case all previously worked for Palantir. They have firmly denied the core allegations against them. The executives stated they did not poach Palantir staff members. They also denied stealing any secret or confidential information from their former employer.
These leaders argue that Palantir is simply using lawsuits as a weapon. They believe the larger company wants to destroy their growing startup through legal means rather than market competition. The Percepta team has asked the judge to deny Palantir's specific requests in the case.
Palantir's Original Allegations Against Percepta
This legal battle started last year when Palantir first took action. The company accused Percepta AI of stealing confidential business information. Palantir also claimed Percepta was deliberately targeting its top talent for recruitment.
Specific Claims in the October 2025 Lawsuit
In October 2025, Palantir filed its lawsuit in the Southern District of New York. The company made several specific accusations against Percepta's founders. Palantir claimed that co-founder and CEO Hirsh Jain and co-founder Radha Jain used stolen information to create what they called a copycat business.
Since both founders previously worked for the data analytics company, Palantir argued they had inside knowledge. The lawsuit alleged the founders tried to steal employees away from Palantir. It also claimed they attempted to plunder Palantir's valuable intellectual property.
Allegations Against a Third Employee
Palantir's lawsuit included accusations against a third Percepta employee named Joanna Cohen. The company claimed that after Cohen quit her job at Palantir, she sent herself private documents. They also alleged she took photographs of sensitive information that she had downloaded to her personal phone.
Escalation of the Legal Battle
In December 2025, Palantir filed an updated lawsuit against all three individuals. The company, whose chairman is Peter Thiel, asked a judge for specific restrictions. They wanted to stop Hirsh Jain from working at Percepta for twelve months. They also sought to prevent him from working for Percepta's financial backer, General Catalyst, during that same period.
Percepta's Response to the Escalation
Soon after Palantir filed this updated lawsuit, Percepta issued a response. The startup stated clearly that it did not use any of Palantir's private information. Percepta representatives called the entire case baseless and without merit.
Recent Court Developments
In a more recent court filing, Percepta's lawyers provided additional details. They reported that thorough searches had been conducted. These searches did not show any Palantir materials within Percepta's possession or systems.
The lawyers addressed the specific allegations about Joanna Cohen's actions. They argued that the screenshots she took were done in good faith. According to their filing, she took them only to help her finish her work responsibilities properly.
Percepta's legal team made an interesting point about the materials in question. They stated that these materials would be useless to Percepta anyway. Furthermore, they argued that by now the information would be stale regardless of its original value.
This legal battle continues to develop as both companies present their arguments in court. The outcome could have significant implications for how tech companies handle competition and employee movement between firms.
