The next sentence is “With that knowledge, Meta deliberately assigned these employees to develop, in a matter of months, Meta’s copycat Threads app.” This sentence doesn’t follow logically unless it was Meta who had the knowledge in the previous sentence.

Maybe, but in that case the writer should just state it as a fact rather that saying that their client knows something.

Whether Twitter knows that employees previously worked for Twitter (etc.) should not have any bearing on Meta’s liability; whether Meta knew this or not absolutely has an impact on liability.

The fact that the next sentence refers to Meta’s knowledge of the the facts in the preceding sentence seems to justify my reading.

Meta purposely had ex-Twitter employees that it hire not work on Threads.