SerpApi Sues 'Copycat' Startup in High-Stakes Tech IP Theft Battle

AUSTIN, TX – February 17, 2026 – The burgeoning and fiercely competitive search data industry has a new battlefront, as leading platform SerpApi has filed a sweeping lawsuit against a former contractor and his company, SearchApi. The suit, lodged in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, alleges a calculated scheme of intellectual property theft, accusing founder Zilvinas Kucinskas of building his rival company on the back of stolen trade secrets.

The lawsuit paints a stark picture of corporate espionage, claiming that Kucinskas systematically pilfered proprietary technology, source code, and even customer lists during his time as a software engineering contractor. SerpApi asserts that this stolen intellectual property was not just retained but was used as the direct foundation for SearchApi, a company that offers strikingly similar services in a head-to-head challenge.

The Allegations in Detail

The court filings, specifically Case No. 1:24-cv-00109-ADA, lay out a series of damning accusations supported by a forensic expert's sworn declaration. SerpApi claims that Mr. Kucinskas, who ended his contract with the company in August 2021, did not sever his ties to their digital assets. The complaint alleges he improperly retained SerpApi's source code and repeatedly accessed the company's servers long after his departure.

Perhaps the most audacious claim is that Kucinskas downloaded SerpApi's proprietary customer list just 11 days before his contract terminated. This list, a highly valuable asset in any industry, represents years of business development and customer relationship building.

"Mr. Kucinskas tried to cover his tracks, but we uncovered his scheme," stated Chad Anson, SerpApi's general counsel, in a public statement. "When confronted, he stonewalled our investigation and feigned ignorance. He refused to cooperate despite multiple attempts to resolve this matter directly. His conduct left us no choice but to file suit."

SerpApi, which has been a public-facing entity about the suit, has taken the unusual step of making the full complaint and its supporting exhibits publicly available. The company frames the legal action as a necessary step to protect a decade of work and tens of millions of dollars in investment, stating that while they spent years building their solution, Kucinskas "spent a few months stealing it."

A High-Stakes Battleground: The Search Data API Market

This legal clash is not happening in a vacuum. It is a symptom of the intense competition within the search data API market, a sector experiencing explosive growth. Companies in this space provide critical infrastructure for the modern internet, offering developers and enterprises structured access to public data from search engines like Google and Bing. This data fuels everything from AI model training and SEO monitoring to cybersecurity threat analysis and e-commerce price tracking.

The global API management market, a category that encompasses these services, was valued at over $4 billion in 2023 and is projected to skyrocket to over $30 billion by 2032. In this lucrative environment, technological advantage is paramount. The ability to reliably and quickly parse complex search engine results pages (SERPs) while navigating anti-scraping measures is a significant competitive moat.

SerpApi, founded in 2017, is an established leader, competing with other major players like Bright Data, Oxylabs, and ScraperAPI. The lawsuit suggests that SearchApi sought a shortcut into this competitive landscape. By allegedly duplicating SerpApi's established technology, the newer company could bypass years of costly research, development, and trial-and-error, a move that SerpApi claims constitutes unfair competition and outright theft.

The Legal and Ethical Crossroads

The case highlights a critical issue facing the entire tech industry: the fine line between an employee using their accumulated skills and experience, and misappropriating an employer's proprietary trade secrets. Legal experts note that the strength of SerpApi's case will likely hinge on its ability to prove two key things: that the information Kucinskas allegedly took qualifies as a legally protected trade secret, and that he directly used that secret information to build SearchApi.

Under the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA), a trade secret is defined as information that derives economic value from not being generally known and is subject to reasonable efforts to maintain its secrecy. Confidentiality clauses in contractor agreements and strict access controls are typical examples of such efforts. SerpApi's public filings suggest they are confident they can meet this standard.

Conversely, potential defenses for Kucinskas and SearchApi could include arguing for independent development—that their technology was built from scratch using publicly available information and general industry knowledge. They might also challenge whether SerpApi's methods are truly secret or are common practices within the web scraping community. As of this report, neither Mr. Kucinskas nor SearchApi have issued a public statement regarding the lawsuit, a common strategy in the early stages of litigation.

Beyond the courtroom, the lawsuit raises profound ethical questions about the responsibilities of contractors and employees in a world where talent and code are highly mobile. It serves as a cautionary tale for startups about the importance of ensuring their technological foundations are free from legal entanglements, and for established companies to constantly review and reinforce their data security and intellectual property protections.

The outcome of this high-profile dispute will be watched closely by developers, investors, and executives across the tech landscape. A decisive victory for SerpApi could embolden other companies to more aggressively pursue IP theft claims, potentially chilling the practice of former employees quickly launching competitive ventures. A successful defense by SearchApi, on the other hand, could underscore the high bar required to prove trade secret misappropriation. The resolution of this case could redefine the rules of engagement for developers and entrepreneurs in the highly competitive data-as-a-service industry.