Magnet Forensics v. Del Gaudio Alleges Ex-Engineer Stole Apple Device Exploit
The complaint alleges that Mario Del Gaudio, a former Exploit Engineer at Magnet Forensics, disclosed the company’s proprietary A12/A13 SecureROM access capability. Del Gaudio executed the MSG capability dozens of times during his placement, gaining hands-on familiarity with its technical architecture. The complaint alleges that after his placement ended, Del Gaudio became affiliated with Paradigm Shift Technology, S.L., which on June 18, 2026, published a blog post titled “Introducing usbliter8: An A12/A13 SecureROM Exploit.” The complaint further alleges that Paradigm Shift coordinated with Apple Product Security before publishing the blog post (Compl. ¶74).
The complaint asserts that “Defendants’ unauthorized disclosure and use of Magnet Forensics’ confidential and trade secret information has caused irreparable harm and continuing damage to Magnet Forensics, and must be stopped immediately” (Compl. ¶6).
The complaint centers on Del Gaudio’s alleged breach of a Proprietary Rights Agreement, which the filing describes as a binding contract governing his placement with Magnet Forensics. The agreement imposes confidentiality and non-disclosure obligations. Key contractual clauses include Del Gaudio’s agreement to notify Magnet Forensics of any unauthorized use of Confidential Information (Ex. A, Sec. 5.3, ¶45), an irrevocable assignment of all rights in Materials and Company Inventions to Magnet Forensics (Ex. A, Sec. 3.3, ¶49), and a waiver of Moral Rights in any Company Inventions (Ex. A, Sec. 4.4, ¶51). The agreement also specifies that all provisions survive the termination of Del Gaudio’s placement (Ex. A, Sec. 11, ¶53).
The agreement defines “Confidential Information” broadly to include “business strategies, customers, prospective customers, pricing practices, contracts, marketing and all other information that belongs to or relates to the Company.” It explicitly prohibits Del Gaudio from disclosing such information “directly or indirectly: (i) misappropriate, disclose, transfer, assign, disseminate or otherwise communicate or make available (orally, in writing or otherwise) to any person or entity any Confidential Information, or any part thereof” (Ex. A, Sec. 5.1, ¶41).
The complaint states that Del Gaudio acknowledged in the agreement that he had “no personal property rights in any Materials” developed during his placement (Ex. A, Sec. 3.1, ¶47) and agreed to hold all such materials in trust for Magnet Forensics (Ex. A, Sec. 3.2, ¶48). The agreement further stipulates that Del Gaudio irrevocably assigned all rights in Materials and Company Inventions to Magnet Forensics (Ex. A, Sec. 3.3, ¶49; Ex. A, Sec. 4.2, ¶50).
Evidence Links Del Gaudio to usbliter8 Publication
The complaint asserts that a “screenshot and personal email” tie Del Gaudio to the @NotHdesk account associated with the blog post. The complaint further alleges that Del Gaudio participated in weekly team meetings discussing the MSG capability’s technical architecture and that he executed the capability dozens of times, gaining intimate knowledge of its operation (Compl. ¶35). The complaint states that Paradigm Shift’s blog post discloses an A12/A13 SecureROM exploit that aligns with Magnet Forensics’ proprietary capability. The filing asserts that the publication references the same A12/A13 SecureROM vulnerability that Magnet Forensics had developed. The complaint quotes a TechCrunch article stating that “companies that sell systems to hack iPhones seized by authorities, such as Cellebrite and Magnet Forensics need, and likely already have at their disposal, techniques similar to usbliter8” (Compl. ¶75). The complaint also alleges that the usbliter8 Exploit Blog Post was republished by at least a dozen media outlets, compounding the alleged irreparable harm (Compl. ¶85).
Magnet Forensics sent cease-and-desist letters to Del Gaudio and Paradigm Shift on June 18 and 19, 2026, respectively, demanding the immediate removal of the publication and associated materials. The complaint alleges that Paradigm Shift’s counsel acknowledged receipt of the cease-and-desist but disputed the claims, stating that Paradigm Shift “reserve[d] all rights and [did] not admit any of the claims asserted or underlying facts alleged” (Compl. ¶78). The complaint further states that Paradigm Shift’s counsel requested “the precise identification of the information your client contends constitutes trade secrets” (Compl. ¶82).
Del Gaudio acknowledged receipt of the cease-and-desist but did not comply with its demands, according to the complaint. Magnet Forensics sent follow-up emails to both defendants on June 26, 2026, but the complaint alleges that Paradigm Shift’s counsel sent a second letter on June 28, 2026, declining to take remedial action. The complaint states that a call between Magnet Forensics and Paradigm Shift’s counsel on June 30, 2026, failed to resolve the dispute. On July 1, 2026, Del Gaudio’s counsel was retained, and future communications were requested to be directed to them (Exhibit H).
Trade Secrets Claims Require Reasonable Secrecy Measures
The complaint alleges that Magnet Forensics took measures to maintain the secrecy of its A12/A13 SecureROM access capability, a critical element of its trade secrets claims under the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA), 18 U.S.C. § 1836 et seq. The filing asserts that the capability required “deep technical expertise and years of research” and that Magnet Forensics restricted access to it on a need-to-know basis, employed encryption, and required non-disclosure agreements (Compl. ¶24-26). The complaint further alleges that the A12/A13 SecureROM access capability was developed at great cost and was not publicly known prior to Paradigm Shift’s blog post (Compl. ¶65).
The complaint states that the A12/A13 SecureROM access capability derives economic value from not being generally known and that it was not publicly disclosed prior to Paradigm Shift’s blog post. The filing asserts that the capability qualifies as a trade secret under the DTSA, as it derives independent economic value from not being generally known or readily ascertainable by others who could obtain economic value from its disclosure or use (Compl. ¶88).
The complaint alleges that Paradigm Shift’s publication of the usbliter8 exploit “has alerted Apple to the vulnerability, which will cause Apple to seek to develop and deploy a mitigation or patch,” thereby impairing Magnet Forensics’ products and rendering the access capability “permanently valueless” (Compl. ¶105). The filing further asserts that the publication has caused “irreparable harm and continuing damage” to Magnet Forensics, necessitating immediate injunctive relief. The complaint describes the defendants’ actions as “a calculated act of commercial misappropriation” (Compl. ¶98).
Causes of Action Against Defendants
The complaint sets forth multiple causes of action against the defendants. Count I alleges Misappropriation of Trade Secrets under the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA), 18 U.S.C. § 1836 et seq., against Del Gaudio and Paradigm Shift (Compl. ¶88). Count II alleges Breach of Contract against Del Gaudio for violating the Proprietary Rights Agreement. Count III alleges Tortious Interference with Business Relationships against all defendants, while Count IV alleges Tortious Interference with Contract specifically against Paradigm Shift. Count V asserts Unjust Enrichment against all defendants, and Count VI alleges Civil Conspiracy against Del Gaudio and Paradigm Shift.
The complaint alleges that Del Gaudio breached multiple sections of the Proprietary Rights Agreement, including his obligations under Sections 5.1 (non-disclosure), 3.1 (no personal property rights in Materials), 3.2 (holding Materials in trust), 4.2 (assignment of Company Inventions), 4.4 (waiver of Moral Rights), and 5.3 (notification of unauthorized use) (Compl. ¶140(a)-(d)). The filing asserts that “Defendants have no right to use or disclose Magnet Forensics’ property” (Compl. ¶134).
Civil Conspiracy and Tortious Interference Claims
The complaint alleges that Del Gaudio and Paradigm Shift engaged in a civil conspiracy to misappropriate and disclose Magnet Forensics’ trade secrets. The filing asserts that the defendants acted in concert to use and disclose Magnet Forensics’ proprietary information and market it as Paradigm Shift’s own (Compl. ¶175). The complaint further alleges that Paradigm Shift tortiously interfered with Magnet Forensics’ business relationships by inducing Del Gaudio to breach his contractual obligations. The filing states that Magnet Forensics maintained valuable business relationships with over 6,000 public and private sector entities in over 100 countries, including law enforcement and intelligence agencies (Compl. ¶18).
The complaint alleges that Paradigm Shift’s publication of the usbliter8 exploit was intended to induce Magnet Forensics’ customers to terminate or refrain from business with the company. The filing asserts that Paradigm Shift’s conduct was intentional and for improper purposes, including unlawful competition and harming Magnet Forensics (Compl. ¶160). The complaint further alleges that Paradigm Shift’s actions entitle Magnet Forensics to punitive damages (Compl. ¶153).
Injunctive Relief and Monetary Damages Sought
The complaint seeks injunctive relief, including a temporary and permanent injunction restraining the defendants from disclosing, using, or soliciting Magnet Forensics’ confidential information and trade secrets. The filing further demands the immediate removal of the usbliter8 publication and associated materials from all platforms, as well as the issuance of takedown requests to third-party platforms hosting the publication within 48 hours. The complaint also seeks a sworn disclosure identifying all persons and entities to whom the defendants disclosed Magnet Forensics’ confidential information, including the dates, nature of communication, and compensation received. The filing further demands the forensic imaging of all devices and systems containing Magnet Forensics’ proprietary information and the deposit of such imaging with outside counsel.
The complaint also requests that Paradigm Shift retain an independent forensic auditor to verify compliance with the court’s orders. Additionally, the filing seeks the return or destruction of all Magnet Forensics property, including confidential information and derivatives, along with a certification of compliance under oath (Compl. ¶Relief).
In addition to injunctive relief, the complaint seeks compensatory, consequential, and incidental damages, as well as disgorgement of all profits the defendants earned through their alleged unlawful conduct. The filing further demands exemplary damages of up to two times the actual damages for willful and malicious misappropriation under the Defend Trade Secrets Act (Compl. ¶102). The complaint also seeks attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses under the Defend Trade Secrets Act and Georgia contract law, including O.C.G.A. § 13-6-11 for bad faith conduct (Compl. ¶179).
The allegations described here are taken from the filing and remain unproven; no responsive pleading is reflected in the source document.
David Brunk is a civil litigation attorney. He can be reached at david@newmanbrunk.com.
From the Complaint Public Court Record
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION MAGNET FORENSICS, LLC, Plaintiff, v. MARIO DEL GAUDIO and PARADIGM SHIFT TECHNOLOGY, S.L., Defendants. Civil Action No. VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF Plaintiff Magnet Forensics, LLC (“Magnet Forensics” or “Plaintiff”), by and through its undersigned attorneys, brings this action against Defendants Mario Del Gaudio (“Del Gaudio”) and Paradigm Shift Technology, S.L. (“Paradigm Shift”) (collectively, “Defendants”). In support, Magnet Forensics alleges as follows: INTRODUCTION 1. Magnet Forensics is a leading developer of digital investigation solutions that enable law enforcement agencies, intelligence agencies, and government entities worldwide to lawfully access, recover, and analyze digital evidence critical to solving crimes and protecting public safety. It develops highly sensitive and proprietary capabilities that represent the product of years of substantial investment in research, development, and engineering expertise. The
-2- confidentiality and proprietary nature of Magnet Forensics’ capabilities is essential to its customers’ ability to access critical evidence in criminal investigations, its competitive position, and the continued operability of Magnet’s products. 2. Defendant Mario Del Gaudio worked as an Exploit Engineer placed with Magnet Forensics from November 2023 through November 2024. As a condition of his placement, Del Gaudio executed a Proprietary Rights, Intellectual Property, and Restrictive Covenants Agreement (the “Agreement”), which imposed binding obligations of confidentiality, non-disclosure, intellectual property assignment, and return of company property—all of which expressly survive the termination of his placement. During his tenure, Del Gaudio was assigned to work on one of Magnet Forensics’ most sensitive proprietary capabilities: a zero-day access capability
Questions about this topic: david@newmanbrunk.com