A Cross-Border Lawsuit Over a Piece of Code: Valeo vs. NVIDIA in the Autonomous Driving Battle

In the autonomous driving industry, how much is a piece of code worth?

For the French automotive parts giant Valeo, the answer to that question might be hundreds of millions of dollars, or even more.

In 2022, Valeo sued U.S. chip giant NVIDIA and several former employees, alleging that its core autonomous driving technology had been illegally obtained and used. A cross‑border lawsuit over source code, trade secrets, and talent mobility unfolded, quickly becoming one of the most watched cases in the global autonomous driving field.

The story began with an engineer.

The employee in question had worked in Valeo’s German team, participating in the R&D of advanced driver‑assistance systems (ADAS) and autonomous driving technologies. After leaving the company, he joined NVIDIA’s autonomous driving business team.

According to information later disclosed, Valeo discovered that before his departure, the employee had transferred internal technical materials, including source code and development files related to Valeo’s autonomous parking assistance system, to personal devices. Even more surprisingly, those materials later appeared in NVIDIA’s internal projects and were eventually detected by Valeo.

After the case came to light, a German court even searched the employee’s residence and seized a large number of technical documents. This detail quickly escalated what had been a business dispute between companies into a matter that drew the entire autonomous driving industry’s attention.

For Valeo, this was not just an ordinary employee departure dispute.

In recent years, autonomous driving technology has become one of the most fiercely competitive areas in the global automotive industry. From sensors to chips, from algorithms to software, every company is investing huge R&D resources in the hope of seizing a leading position in the future market.

In this process, source code is often one of the most core trade secrets.

Unlike patents, many autonomous driving algorithms are not fully disclosed. A company’s true competitive advantage often lies hidden in millions of lines of code, countless test data sets, and long‑accumulated engineering experience. Once these achievements are obtained by a competitor, years of R&D investment could lose their edge in a short time.

Therefore, Valeo argued that the technology in question was not ordinary work material, but an important trade secret developed through long‑term R&D.

In response, NVIDIA stated that it had not actively obtained Valeo’s trade secrets and had taken appropriate measures to address the issue. At the same time, NVIDIA emphasized that its autonomous driving technology was based on an independent R&D system and did not rely on Valeo’s technological achievements for development.

After several years of litigation and investigation, the parties finally reached a settlement in 2025, and the case did not proceed to a final judgment.

Nevertheless, the lawsuit left a deep impression on the entire tech industry.

In the past, when people thought of trade secret cases, they more often thought of blueprint leaks or formula theft in traditional manufacturing. But with the development of artificial intelligence, new energy vehicles, and autonomous driving, code is now becoming a new form of "core asset."

To some extent, the value carried by a critical piece of code may even exceed that of a machine or a production line.

This is also why trade secret lawsuits over autonomous driving technology have been increasing in recent years. From the Waymo‑Uber lidar dispute, to Tesla’s multiple lawsuits against former employees, to the Valeo‑NVIDIA dispute, more and more companies are using legal means to protect their R&D achievements.

For Chinese companies, this case also has practical significance.

At present, a growing number of Chinese enterprises are participating in the global new energy vehicle and autonomous driving industry competition, and are actively attracting high‑end technical talent overseas. Talent mobility itself is not frightening, but companies must be vigilant about the intellectual property risks that come with it.

In practice, many trade secret cases arise not because a company actively stole technology, but because of a lack of adequate compliance mechanisms. For example, for core R&D personnel recruited from competitors, has the company established an information isolation system? Has it required employees to confirm that they have not brought technical documents from their former employers? Can the company prove the independence of its technical sources during the R&D process?

These questions may seem to fall within internal management, but they often become key points of contention in overseas litigation.

The Valeo‑NVIDIA case ended in a settlement, but the trend it reflects is clear: in future technology competition, the importance of trade secret protection will continue to grow, and legal disputes over core technologies, code, and algorithms will become increasingly frequent.

For Chinese companies going global, establishing a sound intellectual property compliance system while attracting top talent and promoting innovation is no longer an option—it is a basic capability required to participate in global competition.