confidential information

In my previous posts, I have discussed the varying standards for injunctive relief under the Texas Uniform Trade Secret Act (TUTSA). Some courts have required showings of irreparable harm. The Southern District of Texas, however, does not.
Continue Reading Southern District of Texas Does Not Require Irreparable Harm for Modification of Temporary Injunction

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

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”