Photo of Heath Coffman

Heath Coffman

Subscribe to Heath Coffman's Posts

Heath Coffman is a shareholder at Brackett & Ellis, P.C. in Fort Worth, Texas.  His practice includes commercial litigation, intellectual property, collections, professional malpractice defense, fiduciary litigation, and appeals.  You can contact him directly at hcoffman@belaw.com.

Follow:Read more about Heath CoffmanHeath's Linkedin ProfileHeath's Twitter Profile

In Jones v. Frisco Fertility Center, PLLC, No. 05-21-00008-CV, 2022 WL 17248837 (Tex. App.—Dallas Nov. 28, 2022, pet. filed), the Dallas Court of Appeals addressed whether plaintiff Frisco Fertility Center’s (FFC) request for an injunction against its former employee Dr. Jones qualified as a legal action under the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA). Specifically, the court of appeals addressed the meaning of the phrase “legal action” under the TCPA and whether a request for injunctive relief can serve as a separate legal action under the TCPA when the request is only a component of the relief sought in an action pending in arbitration.Continue Reading Dallas Court of Appeals Addresses the Meaning of “Legal Action” Under the TCPA

[To highlight B&E’s trademark practice, the Fort Worth Business & Employment Law Reporter is starting a new feature highlighting some of the trademark decisions of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board.] 

Recently, In re Architectural Mailboxes, LLC, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) refused registration of applicant’s BILT mark for “non-metal mailboxes, excluding office products,” determining that the mark was likely to cause confusion with another trademark owner’s previously registered BUILT TO INSPIRE mark for “office furniture, namely, lecterns; table dividers; non-metal mailboxes; cabinets, and storage cabinets, furniture cabinets; tack boards; display boards; track systems consisting of tracks and rollers for cabinet drawers, being parts of cabinets.”  Among other things, the TTAB noted that there was a complete overlap in the goods, which weighed heavily in favor of a likelihood of confusion and also created a presumption that the trade channels and prospective customers overlapped.  The TTAB further rejected the applicant’s argument that BUILT TO INSPIRE was conceptually weak, noting that applicant’s evidence of other registered marks that included the term BUILT were not for the same category of goods and service at issue in this application—i.e., non-metal mailboxes. Continue Reading TTAB Refuses Registration of BILT Mark Based on Likelihood of Confusion

The case of AMS Sensors USA Inc. v. Renesas Elec. Am. Inc., Civil Action No. 4:08-cv-00451, 2022 WL 2918893 (E.D. Tex. July 25, 2022) considered whether a breach of confidential information agreement could be based products that did not incorporate the plaintiff’s trade secret into the products design. Ultimately, the court concluded that “use” of a trade secret was not limited to directly implementing a trade secret into a product.  Rather, use included “any exploitation of the trade secret that is likely to result in [the] [p]laintiff’s injury or [d]efendant’s enrichment.”  Additionally, the court concluded that a defendant’s alleged use of a plaintiff’s trade secret includes “relying on the trade secret to assist or accelerate research or development.”Continue Reading Eastern District of Texas Explores Scope of Trade Secret Use Under Confidentiality Agreement

The case of Vest Safety Medical Services, LLC v. Arbor Environmental, LLC, No. 4:20-CV-0812, 2022 WL 2812195 (S.D. Tex. June 17, 2022) dealt with two issues involving trade secrets.  The first issue considered whether the Texas Uniform Trade Secrets Act (TUTSA) preempted Vest’s civil conspiracy claim.  Ultimately, the court concluded that TUTSA did preempt Vest’s civil conspiracy claim.  In reaching this conclusion, the court relied on the fact that this claim did not rely on facts that were distinct from Vest’s TUTSA Claim.  In the second issue, the court considered whether Vest provided enough evidence for its misappropriation of a trade secret claims to survive Arbor’s summary judgment. Ultimately, the court concluded that there was a genuine issue of material fact as to all elements of Vest’s misappropriation of a trade secret claims. Continue Reading Southern District of Texas Denies Motion for Summary Judgment on Trade Secrets Claim

The case of EthosEnergy Field Services, LLC v. Axis Mechanical Group, Inc., H-21-3954, 2022 WL 2707734 (S.D. Tex. June 10, 2022) considered whether Ethos pled with sufficient detail its Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) and Texas Uniform Trade Secrets Act (TUTSA) claims.  Additionally, the court considered whether TUTSA preempted Ethos’s unfair competition by misappropriation claim. Ultimately, the court determined that Ethos sufficiently pled its DTSA and TUTSA claims.  However, the court also determined that TUTSA preempted Ethos’s unfair competition by misappropriation claim.  Continue Reading Southern District of Texas Explores Trade Secrets Claims in the 12(b)(6) Context

For years, it was not uncommon for misappropriation of trade secrets claims to be accompanied by a variety of other common law causes of action such as breach of fiduciary, fraud, and conspiracy. The Texas Uniform Trade Secrets Act (TUTSA), however, states that it “displaces conflicting tort, restitutionary, and other law of this state providing civil remedies for misappropriation of a trade secret.” Generally, this provision means that all common law or non-contractual claims based on “the alleged improper taking of trade secret and confidential business information” are preempted. Some cases, though, hold that TUTSA “does not preempt causes of action stemming from the misappropriation of confidential information that is not a trade secret.” The Eastern District of Texas explored this split in the case law in BKL Holdings, Inc. v. Globe Life Inc., No. 4:22-CV-00170, 2023 WL 2432012 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 9, 2023). Continue Reading Eastern District of Texas Explores TUTSA’s Preemption Provision

The case of Forum Energy Technologies, Inc. v. Jason Oil & Gas Equipment, LLC, No. H-20-3768, 2022 WL 1103078 (S.D. Tex. April 13, 2022) considered whether the Texas Uniform Trade Secrets Act (TUTSA) preempted Forum Energy’s claims for unfair competition, conspiracy, and/or tortious interference with prospective business relations.  Ultimately, the court determined that only Forum Energy’s tortious interference with prospective business relations was preempted.  In reaching this conclusion, the court determined that the underlying facts of Forum Energy’s tortious interference with prospective business relations claim was based on the same underlying facts as its TUTSA claim.  However, in determining that TUTSA did not preempt Forum Energy’s other claims, the court relied on the fact that Forum Energy alleged that Jason Oil misappropriated confidential information and not trade secret information.Continue Reading Southern District of Texas Addresses the Issue of Preemption Under TUTSA

The case of Bureau Veritas Commodities and Trade, Inc. v. Cotecna Inspection SA, No. 4:21-CV-00622, 2022 WL 912781 (S.D. Tex. 2022) dealt with the application of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) to claims under the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) and the Texas Uniform Trade Secrets Act (TUTSA).  Ultimately, the Southern District of Texas determined that the Plaintiff successfully plead a claim under DTSA and TUTSA.  In reaching this conclusion, the court determined that the Plaintiff was not required to plead detailed descriptions of its trade secret in a public complaint, especially without a court order in place. Continue Reading Southern District of Texas Explains Pleading Requirement for Trade Secrets Cases

As noted on this blog, litigation under the Texas Uniform Trade Secrets Act (TUTSA) often involves sealing court records according to the procedures of Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 76a. Currently, the Texas Legislature is considering a bill to streamline the sealing process for trade secret litigants. In last fall’s issue of the The Advocate, Brackett & Ellis‘s Joe Cleveland and Dillon Minick explained why this change is needed. Continue Reading Brackett & Ellis Attorneys Publish Article Regarding the Problems with Texas’s Procedure for Sealing Court Records