false000101385700010138572026-01-082026-01-08
UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549
____________________
FORM 8-K
____________________
Current Report
Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934
Date of Report (Date of earliest event reported): January 8, 2026
____________________
PEGASYSTEMS INC.
(Exact name of Registrant as specified in its charter)
____________________
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Massachusetts |
1-11859 |
04-2787865 |
| (State or other jurisdiction of incorporation) |
(Commission File Number) |
(IRS Employer Identification No.) |
225 Wyman Street, Waltham, MA 02451
(Address of principal executive offices, including zip code)
(617) 374-9600
(Registrant’s telephone number, including area code)
Not Applicable
(Former name or former address, if changed since last report)
Check the appropriate box below if the Form 8-K filing is intended to simultaneously satisfy the filing obligation of the Registrant under any of the following provisions:
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ☐ |
Written communications pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act (17 CFR 230.425) |
| ☐ |
Soliciting material pursuant to Rule 14a-12 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14a-12) |
| ☐ |
Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14d-2(b)) |
| ☐ |
Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.13e-4(c)) |
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Title of each class |
Trading symbol(s) |
Name of each exchange on which registered |
| Common Stock, $.01 par value per share |
PEGA |
NASDAQ Global Select Market |
Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant is an emerging growth company as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act of 1933 (§230.405 of this chapter) or Rule 12b-2 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (§240.12b-2 of this chapter).
Emerging growth company ☐
If an emerging growth company, indicate by check mark if the Registrant has elected not to use the extended transition period for complying with any new or revised financial accounting standards provided pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act. ☐
Item 8.01. Other Events
On January 8, 2026, the Supreme Court of Virginia unanimously affirmed in full the July 30, 2024 decision of the Court of Appeals of Virginia reversing the judgment for Appian Corp. on the VUTSA claims in the case titled Appian Corp. v. Pegasystems Inc. and Youyong Zou, Circuit Court of Fairfax County, Virginia. The Supreme Court ordered the matter to be remanded for retrial consistent with its opinion.
On January 8, 2026, Pegasystems Inc. sent to its employees the email attached as Exhibit 99.1 with respect to the lawsuit styled Appian Corp. v. Pegasystems Inc. & Youyong Zou.
Item 9.01 Financial Statements and Exhibits
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Exhibit No. |
|
Description |
| 99.1 |
|
|
| 104 |
|
Cover Page Interactive Data File (formatted as Inline XBRL) |
SIGNATURE
Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned thereunto duly authorized.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pegasystems Inc. |
|
|
|
|
| Dated: |
January 9, 2026 |
By: |
/s/ KENNETH STILLWELL |
|
|
|
Kenneth Stillwell |
|
|
|
Chief Operating Officer and Chief Financial Officer |
|
|
|
(Principal Financial Officer) |
EX-99.1
2
exhibit991.htm
EX-99.1
Document
Email to employees of Pegasystems Inc. January 8, 2026
Subject: $2 billion verdict overturned!!
Team Pega:
I’m excited to share another major win in our trade secret litigation with Appian. Today, the Supreme Court of Virginia issued a judgment unanimously affirming what the appellate court previously recognized – that the trial and resulting $2 billion verdict were fundamentally flawed. We’ve consistently said we’re confident we’d be vindicated in a fair trial, and today’s result takes us one step closer to that outcome.
As you may recall, in 2024, a Virginia appellate court unanimously vacated the flawed trade secrets trial, overturned the resulting $2 billion verdict and ordered a new trial. Appian then appealed to the Supreme Court of Virginia, and we countered by raising our own issues for appeal.
The Supreme Court’s decision today rejected every aspect of Appian’s appeal from the intermediate court. But, as expected, Appian is already spinning today’s opinion (and rehashing events only related to the $1 claim we chose not to appeal) even though the trade secrets trial is completely reversed. Make no mistake: today’s decision reinforces our position that there was significant error including:
1.Giving the jury an instruction that improperly shifted the burden of proof on damages to Pega.
2.Limiting Pega's ability to present evidence in response to Appian's requested damages.
3.Preventing Pega from showing evidence that its software did not incorporate Appian's alleged trade secrets.
4.Telling the jury that evidence about how many people had access to Appian’s trade secrets was “not relevant.”
The Supreme Court wasn’t comfortable weighing in on the existence of trade secrets, as they allowed that to be a question for a new jury after an error-free trial. But they did state that even the old trial evidence didn’t ensure a favorable verdict in Appian’s favor.
I want to express my gratitude for your continued focus and professionalism throughout this process. We’ve consistently delivered on our goals and provided innovative solutions to clients and partners – thanks to your dedication.
As we look ahead, we will continue to do what we do best – help our clients drive true transformation in their business!!
Best,
Ken
エドガーで原本を確認する