Bengaluru: In the Infosys-Cognizant trade secrets misappropriation case, a US court has encouraged the two firms to resolve their discovery disagreements through informal means. The court has urged the two firms to arrange a telephone conference prior to filing pretrial discovery motions, engaging in meaningful discussions before involving the court. Should these discussions prove unsuccessful, parties are encouraged to have an informal telephone conference with the court, when suitable, to address disputes efficiently and economically.Cognizant acquired healthcare software firm TriZetto for $2.7 billion in 2014. Among its suite of software products are Facets and QNXT, which are sophisticated software products that have simplified the processing of health insurance claims for millions of Americans. Both Facets and QNXT are built on TriZetto’s confidential and trade secret information. Cognizant alleged that Infosys misappropriated TriZetto’s trade secrets to create a repository of test cases for Facets, which Infosys then marketed as its own and utilised to unfairly compete with TriZetto.Infosys filed counterclaims to stop Cognizant’s anti-competitive conduct. Infosys alleged that Cognizant implemented measures to hinder Infosys’s efforts in creating a rival software solution. This, it said, included attracting key executive sponsors away from the project. These executives, Infosys said, were encouraged to stifle product advancement during their final months with the firm. Infosys’s lawsuit alleged that the primary executive sponsor of Infosys Helix was current Cognizant CEO Ravi Kumar, who was its former President. Infosys alleged that Kumar championed Helix during his tenure at the firm. In a related US court ruling, Infosys submitted its responses opposing Cognizant’s counterclaim. The company alleged that the anticompetitive conduct is ongoing under Kumar’s custodianship. Infosys alleged that Cognizant engaged in a monopolistic scheme to harm competition across the American healthcare payor software and IT services markets.The court filing showed that documents in Kumar’s possession are relevant to virtually all claims and defences presented in this case, and he might be the sole custodian of essential documents pertaining to certain matters. As a result, Infosys has requested that the court reject Cognizant’s motion entirely and direct Cognizant to provide Kumar’s relevant documents.When TOI reached out to Cognizant, the company said, “We appreciate the court’s assistance in bringing an end to Infosys’ unilateral efforts to obstruct discovery. The court made clear that Infosys cannot shield itself behind a self-imposed protective order to avoid disclosing information it is contractually and legally obligated to provide. We have been surprised by Infosys’ refusal to produce this information—particularly given our clear entitlement to it under the parties’ agreement and through standard discovery rules. The only reasonable explanation for Infosys’ continued concealment is that the withheld documents will reveal the true scope and impact of Infosys’ misconduct. We thank the court for its intervention and look forward to proving our case.” An email sent to Infosys didn’t elicit a response by the time of going to the press.