Runlayer sues Rippling alleging clone of its MCP gateway
Runlayer sues Rippling over alleged cloning of its MCP gateway, alleging trade secret theft and breach of contract after an extensive enterprise trial.
Runlayer files lawsuit after product trial ends
Runlayer filed a lawsuit accusing HR software firm Rippling of misappropriating trade secrets and breaching contractual protections after a lengthy product evaluation. The complaint alleges Rippling used confidential technical materials and engineering collaboration from a nearly year-long trial to build a functionally identical MCP gateway.
Runlayer says the dispute began after the two companies signed a mutual nondisclosure agreement and a product trial contract that forbade copying or creating derivative works. According to the complaint, negotiations for a commercial license broke down and Runlayer terminated the trial before discovering what it calls an internal Rippling project mirroring Runlayer’s architecture and code.
Allegations of source-code access and engineering collaboration
The suit details what Runlayer describes as deep technical cooperation during the evaluation period, including sharing of roadmaps, implementation details and portions of source code. Runlayer contends that level of access, combined with subsequent developments at Rippling, supports claims of trade secret theft, unfair competition and breach of contract.
Runlayer alleges a former trial contact messaged its CEO to report an internal Rippling project that was “almost a 1 to 1 copy” of Runlayer’s system, a claim the complaint uses to connect Rippling’s internal work to materials provided during the trial. Those factual assertions form the core of Runlayer’s request for remedies in court.
Rippling confirms gateway launch and denies wrongdoing
Rippling has acknowledged that it is launching its own Model Context Protocol (MCP) gateway product but disputes any misuse of Runlayer’s intellectual property. A company spokesperson rejected the lawsuit’s characterizations, portraying Runlayer’s claims as a reaction to competition rather than proof of misappropriation.
Rippling told the plaintiff it developed the product using proprietary information and expects to compete successfully in the market, according to the statement. The company’s public denial frames the dispute as a legal battle over competitive dynamics rather than a straightforward admission of copying.
Legal muscle and implications for enterprise AI vendors
Runlayer has retained prominent law firm Sullivan & Cromwell to pursue the case, a move that signals seriousness and can affect how the litigation is perceived by investors and customers. While hiring a high-profile firm does not guarantee legal victory, it underscores the commercial stakes for startups selling specialized AI infrastructure.
The lawsuit highlights a dilemma for AI infrastructure vendors who must expose sensitive technology during extended enterprise sales cycles. When prospective customers have large engineering teams, deep technical trials can accelerate procurement but also increase risks that proprietary designs will be reimplemented internally.
MCP protocol growth and a crowded market
The litigation comes as MCP gateways — tools that let AI models and agents securely access external data and services — become standard pieces of AI infrastructure. The Model Context Protocol was released into the open-source ecosystem in late 2024, and multiple companies have introduced gateway products adding management, logging and security layers.
Runlayer entered the market in mid-2025 and has raised tens of millions in venture capital, positioning itself as a commercial provider of MCP gateway technology. That funding and early traction have made the company both a target for competition and a visible example of how quickly the sector can fragment when large platform owners pursue in-house solutions.
Why enterprise trials create competitive risk
Enterprise procurement practices often require deep technical pilots to prove security, compliance and operational fit, especially for infrastructure that connects to sensitive business data. Those pilots typically entail extensive documentation, code samples and integration work — assets that, if accessed beyond agreed terms, can be difficult to police.
For buyers that already possess significant engineering resources, the calculus can favor internal development after a trial validates feasibility. Vendors must therefore balance transparency needed to close deals against contractual and technical measures that limit the risk of reuse or reimplementation by trial participants.
The dispute now moves to the courts, where judges will evaluate Runlayer’s factual claims, the scope of shared materials and whether Rippling’s development crossed legal lines. The outcome could shape how startups structure trials and protect deliverables when negotiating with well-resourced enterprise prospects.
Runlayer’s case will be watched closely by other AI infrastructure firms and by enterprise buyers considering whether to build or buy gateway technology, as it raises practical questions about IP protection, competitive behavior and the trade-offs inherent in technical evaluations.
