In my earlier posts, I explored the complicated definition of “misappropriation” under the Texas Uniform Trade Secret Act (TUTSA).  Litigants and courts often fail to understand all the ways a trade secret may be misappropriated.  In this post, I explore the fifth of six alternative paths to liability under TUTSA: Continue Reading The Six Paths to Liability Under the Texas Uniform Trade Secret Act – Part 5

 

The Texas Uniform Trade Secret Act (TUTSA) displaces conflicting tort, restitutionary, and other law of this state providing civil remedies for misappropriation of a trade secret. Recently, the Corpus Christi Court of Appeals issued an opinion in Super Star International interpreting this provision. The Western District of Texas expanded on this opinion in Embarcadero Technologies, Inc. v. Redgate Software, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-444-RP, 2018 WL 315753 (W.D. Tex. Jan. 5, 2018). Continue Reading Western District of Texas Issues Opinion Interpreting TUTSA Preemption Provision

In my earlier posts, I explored the complicated definition of “misappropriation” under the Texas Uniform Trade Secret Act (TUTSA).  Litigants and courts often fail to understand all the ways a trade secret may be misappropriated.  In this post, I explore the fourth of six alternative paths to liability under TUTSA: Continue Reading The Six Paths to Liability Under the Texas Uniform Trade Secrets Act – Part 4

In my July 16 and Sept 25 posts, I explored the complicated definition of “misappropriation” under the Texas Uniform Trade Secret Act (TUTSA).  Litigants and courts often fail to understand all the ways a trade secret may be misappropriated.  In this post, I explore the third of six alternative paths to liability under TUTSA: Continue Reading The Six Paths to Liability Under the Texas Uniform Trade Secrets Act – Part 3

In BCOWW Holdings, LLC v. Collins, SA-17-CA-00379-FB, 2017 WL 3868184 (W.D. Tex. Sept. 5, 2017), the district court denied injunctive relief to the plaintiff who alleged its former employee was using its trade-secret information.  Plaintiff alleged that defendant misappropriated, among other things, its confidential drawings (engineering plans) and pricing information.   The court observed that these are certainly protected by the Texas Uniform Trade Secret Act (TUTSA)—if the information is kept a secret.  Plaintiff argued that it took reasonable efforts to maintain the secrecy of its information by only disclosing it to persons under an implied obligation not to use or disclose it and only on a limited basis. Continue Reading New Case Explains that Employers Must Be Proactive if They Want to Protect Their Trade Secrets

On September 1, 2017, changes to the Texas Uniform Trade Secret Act (TUTSA) went into effect.  These changes were designed to accomplish two goals: (1) incorporate certain provisions of the new federal Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) to eliminate confusion and avoid possible forum shopping between state and federal courts and (2) codify the Texas Supreme Court’s holding in In re M-I, LLC, which sets forth the factors that a court must analyze in order to prohibit a party from participating in certain portions of a trade secrets case.

The September 2017 issue of the Texas Bar Journal published an article outlining these changes to TUTSA. Continue Reading Texas Bar Journal Publishes Trade Secrets Article by Brackett & Ellis Attorneys

Often, in trade secrets and other types of commercial litigation, the courts will enter protective orders so that the parties can exchange trade secret or proprietary information without losing the “secret” nature of the information.  This exchange of information is generally necessary so that the parties can understand the nature of the dispute.  For instance, if the claim is that a competitor misappropriated a customer list, the plaintiff might have to produce the customer list that it claims was misappropriated.  Additionally, the parties often exchange confidential financial information in order to prove their damages. Continue Reading When “Attorneys’ Eyes Only” Doesn’t Mean “Attorneys’ Eyes Only”

Law360 recently published an article about the Fifth Circuit case of BWP Media USA, Inc. v. T&S Software Associates, Inc.   The issue in BWP Media was whether “volitional conduct” is required for direct copyright infringement.   Defendant T&S Software Associates hosted an internet forum in which users posted images that infringed copyrights owned by Plaintiffs BWP Media USA and National Photo Group.  The plaintiff sued T&S for direct and secondary copyright infringement, but the trial court granted summary judgment for T&S.  Continue Reading Brackett & Ellis Copyright Case Featured in Law360 Article

The Texas Uniform Trade Secret Act’s definition of misappropriation is complicated, and it is frequently misinterpreted by both the courts and litigants.  In this post, I explore the first of the six alternative paths to liability: Continue Reading The Six Paths to Liability Under the Texas Uniform Trade Secret Act – Part 1