DTSA

Subscribe to DTSA

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

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

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

The case of Phazr, Inc. v. Ramakrishna, No. 3:19-CV-01188-X, 2020 WL 5526554 (N.D. Tex. Sept. 14, 2020), evaluated the pleading requirements expected of a plaintiff in a misappropriation of trade secrets claim under the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) and the Texas Uniform Trade Secrets Act (TUTSA).  Ultimately, the Court determined that the plaintiff failed to meet the plausibility standard expressed in Twombly-Iqbal. 
Continue Reading Northern District of Texas Holds that Plaintiff Failed to Plead Claim for Trade Secrets

Last fall, the Texas Journal of Business Law, the journal of the Business Law Section of the State Bar of Texas, published my colleagues Joe Cleveland and Kevin Smith‘s article A Practitioner’s Guide to the Texas Uniform Trade Secret Act.  It’s a great resource for any trade secret litigator. 
Continue Reading A Practitioner’s Guide to the Texas Uniform Trade Secret Act

In M-I L.L.C. v. Q’Max Sols., Inc., No. CV H-18-1099, 2019 WL 3565104 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 6, 2019) involves the familiar fact of an employee leaving his employer and taking the employer’s trade secrets with him.  After the employer conducted a forensic investigation and discovered that the departing employee had downloaded the employer’s confidential documents before he departed, the employer sued the employee for various causes of action, including violations of the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA), violations of the Texas Uniform Trade Secret (TUTSA), and breach of his non-disclosure agreement.
Continue Reading Southern District of Texas Denies Summary Judgment In Part for Trade Secrets Claim