Archer Aviation Lawsuit: Trade Secrets, ITC Patents, and Vertical

The Archer Aviation lawsuit landscape now spans four connected fights: a trade secret case Joby Aviation filed against Archer and a former Joby employee in late 2025, Archer’s countersuit accusing Joby of hiding Chinese manufacturing operations, a U.S. International Trade Commission patent investigation Archer triggered against Joby’s imports, and a separate Archer patent suit against British competitor Vertical Aerospace. A federal judge narrowed both the trade secret case and the countersuit in June 2026, and the ITC matter is still in its early stages.

The Trade Secret Case Joby Filed Against Archer

Joby Aviation sued Archer Aviation and George Kivork on November 19, 2025, in the Superior Court of Santa Cruz County, California, with an 11-count complaint accusing Archer of what Joby called “corporate espionage, planned and premeditated.”¹²

Kivork had been Joby’s U.S. state and local policy lead. He resigned in July 2025 to take a business development role at Archer.³ Two days before announcing his resignation, according to the complaint, Kivork downloaded dozens of confidential internal files, sent material to a personal email account, and altered access permissions on hundreds of documents so he could keep viewing them after he left. The files allegedly included commercial agreements, vertiport plans, and technical aircraft data.¹

The most specific allegation involved a strategic partnership Joby had negotiated with an unnamed real estate developer for air taxi infrastructure. Joby said Archer used the stolen information to undercut that deal and pointed to an email from the developer that it claimed showed Archer knew the confidential terms of Joby’s agreement.² The complaint’s counts included trade secret theft, inducing breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of loyalty, and unfair competition. Joby sought damages and an injunction barring Archer from benefiting from the disputed material.¹

Archer denied everything. CEO Adam Goldstein called the allegations “fantasy” on social media. Chief Legal and Strategy Officer Eric Lentell described the case as “baseless litigation” and “an anti-competitive gambit by Joby to slow down a more successful competitor,” and said the complaint did “not identify a single specific trade secret let alone any evidence of misappropriation.” Lentell also emphasized that Kivork was “a non-technical employee.”³

The case moved to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, assigned to Magistrate Judge Susan van Keulen as case number 5:25-cv-10703.⁴ Archer and Kivork moved to dismiss in January 2026.⁵

What the Federal Judge Kept and Threw Out

On June 5, 2026, Judge van Keulen sharply narrowed the case. She allowed one core trade secret claim to proceed: the allegation that Kivork misappropriated confidential information about the unnamed real estate developer and that Archer used it in its own negotiations with the same partner. That “misappropriation is sufficiently pleaded,” she found.⁶ A narrow breach-of-contract claim against Kivork also survived, based on a provision in his employment agreement requiring departing employees to return company documents.⁷

Almost everything else fell away. The judge dismissed the broader allegations that Kivork had stolen regulatory, infrastructure, and technical aircraft information, concluding that Joby had not been specific enough about how that data was misappropriated. She also ruled that the confidentiality and intellectual property agreement Kivork had signed at Joby was “unenforceable” because it functioned as a de facto non-compete, which California law prohibits. The claim that Archer had “induced” Kivork to breach that agreement was dismissed with leave to amend, and several state law claims were found to be “mostly preempted” by California’s trade secret statute.⁷ Joby was given until June 22, 2026, to amend the dismissed portions of the complaint.⁶

Archer’s Countersuit Over Joby’s China Ties

Archer fired back on March 9, 2026, with a countersuit accusing Joby of defrauding the U.S. government and competitors by marketing itself as an American-made company while relying on a Chinese manufacturing subsidiary.⁸ The filing alleged Joby had “scrubbed” references to its Shenzhen operations from public materials while telling trade-show audiences it was “completely vertically integrated in the U.S.”⁹

The headline allegation involved imports. Archer claimed Joby had misclassified “thousands of pounds of Chinese-origin aircraft materials” on customs forms, labeling them as consumer goods like “hair clips, socks, and photo albums” to evade tariffs.⁸ Archer also alleged that a Joby subsidiary had received technology development grants from Beijing and that Joby had secured hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. government funding, including Air Force contracts, under false pretenses.⁶ The theories were framed as unfair competition and false advertising claims.⁹

The subsidiary at the center of the dispute is Joby Metal Shenzhen Co., Ltd., established in 2012 and wholly owned by Joby Motors, LLC, operating as a machining and manufacturing site for aviation components.¹⁰¹¹⁹¹²

Judge van Keulen’s June 5, 2026, order dismissed Archer’s entire countersuit, characterizing the claims as “vague” and “shotgun pleadings” that lacked sufficient detail.⁶ Archer was given until June 29, 2026, to amend and refile.⁷

The ITC Patent Investigation Against Joby’s Imports

Archer opened a second front in March 2026 by filing a complaint with the U.S. International Trade Commission. On April 9, 2026, the ITC formally instituted an investigation, designated No. 337-TA-1499, into whether Joby’s imported electric aircraft, power systems, and components, including battery cells and battery packs, infringe five Archer patents.¹³ The patents at issue are U.S. Patent Nos. 11,945,594; 12,162,614; 8,469,306; 12,103,404; and 12,472,087.¹⁴

Archer is seeking a limited exclusion order and cease and desist orders that could block Joby from importing components it needs for aircraft production and certification testing.¹³ Industry analyst Sergio Cecutta told the Los Angeles Times that the outcome “could affect Joby’s entrance into the U.S. market.”⁵ The case is now assigned to an administrative law judge for an evidentiary hearing, and no decision on the merits has been made.

Archer’s Patent Suit Against Vertical Aerospace

Archer has also taken another eVTOL competitor to court. On February 23, 2026, it sued British firm Vertical Aerospace in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, alleging that Vertical’s newly unveiled “Valo” aircraft copies the design of Archer’s “Midnight.”¹⁵ The case involves two design patents covering the aircraft’s fuselage, V-tail, and wing integration (U.S. Patent Nos. D1,062,878 and D1,067,164) and a utility patent covering flight control systems for electric propulsion and battery power management (U.S. Patent No. 11,945,597).¹⁶ Archer called the Valo a “visual mimic” of the Midnight. Vertical denied the claims, calling them “without merit” and saying its technology is independently developed. The case remains active before Judge James Rodney Gilstrap.

Where Things Stand Now

As of mid-June 2026, the federal case between Joby and Archer is active and in discovery, with recent docket entries showing joint discovery disputes and motions to seal documents.⁴ Joby’s surviving trade secret claim about the real estate developer and its breach-of-contract claim against Kivork over document return are moving forward. Both sides face amendment deadlines from the June 5 order: Joby by June 22, Archer by June 29.⁷ The ITC investigation into Archer’s patent claims against Joby’s imports is in its early stages, and no trial date has been set in any of the proceedings.

1
Vertical Mag. Joby Takes Legal Aim at Rival Archer Over Trade Secret Dispute
2
Hunterbrook Media. Archer
3
CNBC. Joby Archer Air Taxi Lawsuit
4
PACER Monitor. Joby Aero, Inc v Archer Aviation Inc et al
5
Los Angeles Times. Dogfight Over California: Inside Legal Battle Between Archer Joby
6
Flight Global. Archer and Joby Both Claim Victory in Latest Round of Legal Battle
7
Aviation Week. Joby Trade Secret Case Survives, Archer Counterclaims Dismissed
8
TechCrunch. Electric Air Taxi Maker Archer Hits Back at Joby in Countersuit Alleging Concealed Chinese Ties
9
Aviation Week. Joby Seeks Dismissal of Archer Allegations Over China Ties, Tariffs
10
Zag Daily. Archer Countersues Joby Over China Ties
11
Joby Aviation Investor Relations. Joby Exhibit 21.1
12
AIN Online. Archer Countersuit Targets Joby’s eVTOL Supply Chain
13
U.S. International Trade Commission. USITC Press Release
14
Federal Register. Certain Electric Aircraft, Power Systems for Electric Aircraft, and Components Thereof
15
AIN Online. Archer Sues eVTOL Rival Vertical for Patent Infringement
16
CourtListener. Archer Aviation Inc. v. Vertical Aerospace Ltd.