Almost every trade secrets case involves some sort of request for injunctive relief prohibiting the alleged infringer from using the trade secrets at issue.  If the court grants the request for injunctive relief and you are the party accused of misappropriating the trade secret, you want to have some specificity in the court’s order so you can know the specific trade secrets you a prohibiting from using.
Continue Reading

The Eastern District of Virginia has issued multiple opinions addressing the Texas Uniform Trade Secret (TUTSA) in Steves & Sons, Inc. v. JELD-WEN, Inc., No. 3:16CV545, 2018 WL 6272893 (E.D. Va. Nov. 30, 2018). Its latest opinion addressed whether plaintiff was entitled to both reasonable royalty damages and a permanent injunction following trial. Defendant argued that allowing both would constitute an impermissible double recovery. Surprisingly, the Court agreed.

Continue Reading

One of the most difficult things in prosecuting a trade secret case is determining how to define the trade secrets that have been misappropriated. If a plaintiff defines the trade secrets too narrowly, it runs the risk of failing to stop the misappropriation. However, if a plaintiff uses a definition of trade secrets that is based on broad or generic terms, then the plaintiff runs the risk that its requested injunctive relief will be denied.
Continue Reading

Under Texas law, the one-satisfaction rule states that a plaintiff is entitled to only one recovery for any damages suffered because of a particular injury. In TMRJ Holdings, Inc. v. Inhance Techs., LLC, No. 01-16-00849-CV, 2018 WL 326421 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Jan. 9, 2018, no pet. h.), a misappropriation of trade secrets case, defendant argued that plaintiff’s judgment against it for a $4 million reasonable royalty and a permanent injunction violated the one satisfaction rule because the calculation of a reasonable royalty contemplated the future of the misappropriated technology.
Continue Reading