A Battle Over Blockchain: Jump Trading Accuses Former Employee of Intellectual Property Theft
In the world of high-stakes crypto and blockchain innovation, intellectual property (IP) is often the lifeblood of a company’s success. So when Jump Trading—one of the most well-known crypto firms—accused a former employee of stealing its secrets to start a competing business, it sparked an explosive legal battle.
In a lawsuit filed on January 21, Jump Trading accused ex-software engineer, Liam Heeger, of breaching his contract by stealing confidential information and using it to launch a rival blockchain startup, Unto Labs. Let’s break it down: how did a talented engineer go from being a key player in a major blockchain project to allegedly plotting a corporate espionage move? Here’s the inside scoop.
The Allegations: A Case of Corporate Espionage?
Jump Trading is no stranger to the blockchain scene, having been involved in numerous projects, including the high-profile Firedancer blockchain initiative. Heeger, who worked as one of the lead engineers for Firedancer, is accused of using his deep knowledge of the project’s code, models, and strategies to help create Unto Labs—a new company that aims to build a next-generation layer-1 blockchain.
According to Jump, Heeger violated a non-compete clause in his contract, which clearly prohibited him from working on a “competitive business” during or after his employment. The crypto firm claims that Heeger not only started working on his new venture while still employed but that he also took highly sensitive intellectual property with him when he left.
Heeger, who resigned from Jump in November 2023, took to social media on January 22 under the handle Cantelopepeel to announce that he was founding Unto Labs. The timing of his exit and his rapid shift to a blockchain startup raised suspicions at Jump, which alleges that Heeger used the insider knowledge he gained at Jump to fuel Unto’s development.
The Stolen Secrets: What’s at Stake?
Jump Trading claims that Heeger had access to highly sensitive proprietary information, including business strategies, unreleased codebases, software tools, and blockchain models—all of which were crucial to the success of Jump’s blockchain operations. In the complaint, Jump stated that the firm’s ability to remain competitive in the blockchain space hinges on protecting this IP.
“Jump’s ability to run its business profitably depends on keeping its intellectual property— including strategies, proprietary data, research, and technology—confidential,” the lawsuit reads. Essentially, the firm argues that Heeger’s alleged theft of this information could directly harm its bottom line.
A Quick Leap to Success: Heeger’s Fast-Paced Transition to Unto Labs
One of the most eye-catching parts of the lawsuit is how quickly Heeger’s new venture, Unto Labs, appears to have taken off. Just one month after his resignation, Unto raised a staggering $3 million in funding at a $50 million valuation. Jump’s legal team claims that Heeger actively sought out venture capital (VC) funding while still employed at Jump, even attending the Breakpoint conference in Singapore—an event that serves as a hotspot for blockchain networking—while working for Jump.
The lawsuit alleges that Heeger continued to use confidential information from Jump to build his new company, thereby gaining an unfair competitive advantage. According to Jump, Heeger even went so far as to meet with former colleagues after his resignation, revealing confidential details about his new venture and hinting at how he was leveraging Jump’s intellectual property for Unto’s benefit.
The Legal Battle: What’s at Stake for Heeger?
Jump Trading is now asking the court to enforce the terms of the non-compete agreement, which would prevent Heeger from working with anyone involved in Unto Labs for two years, as stipulated by the contract. The firm is also demanding that any stolen intellectual property be returned immediately and that Heeger refrain from using any of Jump’s confidential data in his new venture.
But Heeger, for his part, seems to have a different view. After his resignation, he reportedly told his former supervisor that he would no longer abide by the non-compete agreement because he had moved to California—where employment laws are more lenient compared to Illinois (Jump’s base of operations).
It’s clear that this case will have significant implications not only for Jump but for the broader blockchain and crypto industries, where intellectual property and trade secrets are often the most valuable assets a company has.
What’s Next for Jump and Heeger?
As of now, Heeger and Unto Labs have yet to respond to the lawsuit. With both sides claiming that they’re in the right, it’s likely that this case will drag on, potentially setting a precedent for future IP disputes in the blockchain space. If Jump’s allegations prove true, it could serve as a cautionary tale for other blockchain startups about the importance of protecting intellectual property and ensuring that non-compete clauses are enforced.
As for Heeger, if the court sides with Jump, it could mean more than just a financial setback—there’s also the potential for a significant legal and reputational toll on his budding blockchain company. Whether or not Unto Labs can survive without its founder’s access to Jump’s intellectual property remains to be seen.
The Bottom Line: Blockchain Drama in the Making
The case between Jump Trading and Liam Heeger is the latest in a long line of legal battles over intellectual property in the high-stakes world of crypto and blockchain. As the industry grows, so do the tensions between innovation, competition, and the protection of confidential business strategies. Whether or not Jump succeeds in reclaiming its intellectual property, one thing is certain: the drama is far from over.
