Non-Disclosure Agreements

In Six Dimensions, Inc. v. Perficient, Inc., No. 19-20505, 2020 WL 4557640 (5th Cir. Aug. 7, 2020), the Fifth Circuit explores the issue of what happens when an employer hires a new employee who is in possession of his former employer’s trade secrets.  In Six Dimensions, plaintiff Six Dimensions’ former employee left his Six Dimensions employment with a USB drive of Six Dimensions’ training materials.  The employee started work at competitor Perficient and brought with him the USB drive.  The evidence at trial demonstrated that there was discussion between the employee and Perficient about uploading the Six Dimensions’ training materials to Perficient’s server, but Perficient ultimately decided not to use the training materials.
Continue Reading Fifth Circuit Affirms Trial Court’s Judgment that Competitor Did Not Misappropriate Trade Secrets

Title Source, Inc. v. HouseCanary, Inc., No. 04-19-00044-CV, 2020 WL 2858866 (Tex. App.–San Antonio  June 3, 2020, pet. granted) is a new case addressing the jury charge in Texas Uniform Trade Secrets Act (TUTSA) cases.  In my previous post about the case,  I discussed the Casteel problem in the misappropriation instructions that resulted in reversal of this multi-million dollar judgment.  (For a complete discussion of the facts, please see this previous blog post.)  The court, however, addressed more than the just the misappropriation question.
Continue Reading More Lessons from Title Source v. HouseCanary

In 2019, the Dallas Court of Appeals issued a decision in Goldberg v. EMR (USA Holdings) Inc., a complex opinion in evaluating the application of the previous version of the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA) to trade secrets and other claims.  In 2020, the Court reissued that opinion with a more streamlined analysis.
Continue Reading Dallas Court of Appeals Issues Simplified Opinion in Goldberg Case

In EJ Madison, LLC v. Pro-Tech Diesel, Inc., No. 08-17-00229-CV, 2019 WL 6242301, at *1 (Tex. App.–El Paso Nov. 22, 2019, no pet. h.), plaintiff Madison operated a trucking company and defendant Pro-Tech provided maintenance services to the trucks.  The parties entered into a non-disclosure agreement so they could work together on diesel-to-natural gas conversion kits for the trucks.  Additionally, Pro-Tech continued to provide general maintenance work for the trucks.
Continue Reading El Paso Court of Appeals Affirms Dismissal of Trade Secrets Case

Morrison v. Profanchik, No. 05-17-01281-CV, 2019 WL 3798182 (Tex. App.–Dallas Aug. 13, 2019), supplemented, No. 05-17-01281-CV, 2019 WL 5112268 (Tex. App.–Dallas Oct. 10, 2019) is a case involving the summary judgment dismissal of counterclaims for breach of non-disclosure/non-compete agreement and misappropriation of trade secrets.  In Morrison, plaintiff Profanchik approached Stonecoat of Texas about purchasing one of its franchises.  The parties entered into a nondisclosure/noncompete agreement with the understanding that the competitor would be divulging confidential and trade secret information as part of the due diligence process.  Profanchik, however, later walked away from the deal, started a competing limestone veneer company, and sued Stonecoat and its owners for tort causes of action arising from the parties’ negotiations.
Continue Reading Failure to Specify How Trade Secrets Are Allegedly Being Used Results in Summary Judgment Dismissal of Claims

Pearl Energy Inv. Mgmt., LLC v. Gravitas Res. Corp., No. 05-18-01012-CV, 2019 WL 3729501 (Tex. App.—Dallas Aug. 7, 2019, no pet.) is a trade secrets case involving the previous version of Texas’s anti-SLAPP statute the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA).  (Effective September 1, 2019, the TCPA no longer applies to trade secrets claims.)  In Pearl Energy, Gravitas, an oil and gas production company, alleged that it spent years researching and evaluating the purchase of certain natural gas assets in Utah from Anadarko.  In 2016, Gravitas approached Anadarko about purchasing the assets.  Gravitas eventually won the bid for the assets and began negotiating a purchase and sale agreement for the assets.
Continue Reading Dallas Court of Appeals Affirms Denial of TCPA Motion in Trade Secrets Case

Texas’s anti-SLAAP statute, the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA), can apply to a variety of commercial litigation claims, including claims for misappropriation of trade secrets and breach of non-disclosure agreements (NDAs).  If the TCPA is invoked in a case and is found to apply, the plaintiff must respond with clear and specific evidence of the prima facie elements of its causes of action.  Recently, the Texas Supreme Court addressed what evidence would satisfy plaintiff’s burden to establish causation and damages.
Continue Reading Texas Supreme Court Addresses Proof of Damages in Responding to TCPA Motion

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 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