⚖ Oral Arguments, with Context

The Sixth Circuit hears AirPro Diagnostics v. Drew Technologies. AirPro supplied repair shops with tools and remote technicians to diagnose vehicles, using hardware from Drew and licensed diagnostic software. During unsuccessful merger talks in 2017, AirPro and Drew signed a confidentiality contract called the Mutual Party Agreement. AirPro alleges that information shared in those talks helped build competing products. Later, Drew's corporate group acquired AirPro's software supplier; new license terms restricted remote use. AirPro then lost access to future updates, though it could keep using software already downloaded. The district judge rejected AirPro's contract, tortious-interference and unfair-competition claims without a trial. AirPro's lawyer will argue that the confidentiality contract requires the defendants to prove independent development, and that disputed evidence belongs before a jury. The defendants' lawyer will argue that the technology was already known or independently developed, and that legitimate business concerns justified the licensing changes. Summary judgment means deciding without trial when no genuine dispute over outcome-changing facts requires one. Tortious interference concerns improper disruption of another's business relationships or expected business. You will also hear diversity jurisdiction: federal authority based on the parties' different state citizenship. Michigan law governs this confidentiality agreement.

AirPro Diagnostics v. Drew Technologies (No. 25-1987) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, argued October 20, 2026.