A plaintiff who believes its trade secrets have been misappropriated can pursue those claims in either federal or state court. One of the advantages of choosing federal court is the growing body of case law holding that the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA), Texas’s anti-SLAAP statute, does not apply in federal court.
Continue Reading The Eastern District of Texas Determines that Texas’s Anti-SLAAP Statute Does Not Apply to Claims Filed in Federal Court
One of the most common defenses to a misappropriation of trade secrets case under the Texas Uniform Trade Secrets Act (TUTSA) is to file a motion to dismiss under Texas’s anti-SLAAP statute the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA). The defendants in Mancilla v. Taxfree Shopping, Ltd, No. 05-18-00136-CV, 2018 WL 6850951 (Tex. App.—Dallas Nov. 16, 2018, no pet.) employed the TCPA to defend against plaintiff’s TUTSA claim. Unfortunately, though, the defendants were too late in filing the motion.
Continue Reading The Filing of an Amended Petition Does Not Restart the Clock for Filing an Anti-SLAAP Motion to Dismiss
As previously mentioned in this blog, one of the biggest issues in trade secrets litigation in Texas is the application of the state’s anti-SLAAP statute the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA) to claims under the Texas Uniform Trade Secret Act (TUTSA). Because of the broad language of the TCPA, defendants can file a TCPA motion to dismiss in almost any trade secrets case.
On June 2, 2019, Governor Abbott signed a bill to change that.
Continue Reading Governor Abbott Signs Bills Amending the TCPA
If you have been following Texas cases on the Texas Uniform Trade Secrets Act (TUTSA), you know that a plaintiff that files a TUTSA claims will almost inevitably receive in response a motion to dismiss under Texas’s anti-SLAAP statute the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA). This is what happened in Gaskamp v. WSP USA, Inc., No. 01-18-00079-CV, 2018 WL 6695810 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Dec. 20, 2018, no pet. h.), and Gaskamp provides some important reminders—for both plaintiffs and defendants—on how to handle that motion and the inevitable appeal.
Continue Reading How Not to Respond to an Anti-SLAAP Motion in a Trade Secrets Case
If you have been reading this blog, you know that I have frequently commented on the use of Texas’s anti-SLAPP statute the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA) to defeat a Texas Uniform Trade Secrets Act (TUTSA) claim. Most of the early cases involved defendants using the TCPA to dismiss a plaintiff’s TUTSA claim. Universal Plant Services, Inc. v. Dresser-Rand Group, Inc., No. 01-17-00555-CV, 2018 WL 6695813 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Dec. 20, 2018, no pet.) involves a plaintiff overcoming defendants’ TCPA motions.
Continue Reading How to Beat an Anti-SLAAP Motion in a Trade Secrets Case
The Texas Uniform Trade Secret (TUTSA) allows a defendant to recover its attorneys’ fees if (1) the claim for misappropriation was brought in bad faith or (2) a motion to terminate an injunction is made or resisted in bad faith. The recent Dallas Court of Appeals case of Performance Pulsation Control, Inc. v. Sigma Drilling Technologies, No. 05-17-01423, 2018 WL 6599180 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2018, no pet. h.) is one of the few cases that has evaluated that standard.
Continue Reading Dallas Court of Appeals Evaluates Standard for Attorneys’ Fees Under TUTSA
If you have been following my blog, you know that Texas’s anti-slapp statute—the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA)—frequently applies to commercial litigation claims. McDonald Oilfield Operations, LLC v. 3B Inspection, LLC, No. 01-18-00118-CV, 2018 WL 6377432 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Dec. 6, 2018, no pet. h.) is another example of the use of the TCPA as a defense to a commercial litigation suit. In McDonald Oilfield Operations, plaintiff 3B Inspection brought claims a defamation, business disparagement, and tortious interference with contract after defendant McDonald Oilfield Operations, a competitor in the pipeline monitoring business, allegedly told one of 3B’s customers that 3B was “not a real company” and that McDonald Oilfield had suspended some 3B’s employees’ qualifications. (Three of 3B’s employees had worked for McDonald Oilfield as independent contractors and had received their credentials through McDonald Oilfield. McDonald Oilfield asserted claims that these employees had misappropriated trade secrets and stolen company property.)
Continue Reading Another Example of Texas’s Anti-Slapp Statute Applying to Commercial Litigation Claims
The Eastern District of Virginia has issued multiple opinions addressing the Texas Uniform Trade Secret (TUTSA) in Steves & Sons, Inc. v. JELD-WEN, Inc., No. 3:16CV545, 2018 WL 6272893 (E.D. Va. Nov. 30, 2018). Its latest opinion addressed whether plaintiff was entitled to both reasonable royalty damages and a permanent injunction following trial. Defendant argued that allowing both would constitute an impermissible double recovery. Surprisingly, the Court agreed.
Continue Reading Eastern District of Virginia Holds that Plaintiff’s Reasonable Royalty Testimony Precludes a Permanent Injunction
As previously mentioned in this blog, one of the biggest issues in trade secrets litigation in Texas is the application of the state’s anti-SLAAP statute the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA) to claims under the Texas Uniform Trade Secret Act (TUTSA). Because of the broad language of the TCPA, defendants can file a TCPA motion to dismiss in almost any trade secrets case. Texas Representative Jeff Leach, however, has filed a bill to change that.
Continue Reading Bill to Amend TCPA filed in Texas House of Representatives
TexasBarCLE‘s 32nd Annual Advanced Intellectual Property Law seminar is February 27-March 1, 2019. There are three great days of CLE:
I will be presenting on the 2018 Trade Secrets Update on day 2.
Continue Reading Brackett & Ellis to Present the 2018 Trade Secrets Update at TexasBarCLE’s 32nd Annual Advanced Intellectual Property Law Course