Trade Secrets

Subscribe to Trade Secrets via RSS

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

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

In the case of Scientific Machine & Welding, Inc. v. Rose, No. 03-20-00564-CV, 2022 WL 850409 (Tex. App.—Austin Mar. 23, 2022, no pet.), the Texas Court of Appeals determined (1) if the steps taken by the plaintiff amounted to a “reasonable measure” of keeping the relative information a trade secret, (2) whether Scientific came forth with legally sufficient evidence to support claims of breach of fiduciary duty and breach of contract, (3), whether Scientific’s claim of a “breach of implied contract of confidentiality” existed under Texas Law.   Continue Reading Texas Court of Appeal Evaluates What Actions Constitute “Reasonable Measures” to Keep a Trade Secret

The case of Pittsburgh Logistics Sys., Inc. v. Barricks, No. :20-CV-04282, 2022 WL 705870 (S.D. Tex. 2022), dealt with determining whether a customer list was a trade secret under the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) and the Texas Uniform Trade Secret Act (TUTSA).  Additionally, this case dealt with determining whether Pittsburgh Logistics Systems’s (PLS) claims for unfair competition, tortious interference with prospective business, and breach of fiduciary duty were preempted by TUTSA.  Ultimately, the court determined that a factual issue existed as to whether PLS’s customer list was a trade secret.  Moreover, the court determined that the TUTSA preempted PLS’s claims for unfair competition, tortious interference with prospective business, and breach of fiduciary duty.Continue Reading Southern District of Texas Holds that There is a Fact Issue on Whether a Customer List is a Trade Secret