The court found the allegations plausible, but in the process did dismiss some claims as preempted under TUTSA.
Judge Miller enforced the arbitration agreement.
The court granted the first, but only part of the second.
Judge Mazzant affirmed the jury’s $150 million verdict in this trade secret case.
The good news is the judge thinks you’re skilled at working with data. That’s also the bad news.
In a pair of short orders, Judge Hughes dismissed all the plaintiff’s claims.
A partial win for the plaintiff on the motion to dismiss DTSA and other claims. “Very” partial.
Just witnessed one of the more brilliant presentation tactics I’ve ever seen. Paul Storm was just up talking about a case involving trade secrets, and as soon as he mentioned a particular party, his co-panelist Mike Karson stopped him, and took over the podium to begin explaining the effect that an Anti-SLAPP motion could have interrupting a case (as he did Paul’s presentation). Brilliant. Just brilliant.
Today appears to be former employee day, topped off with the first seizure order I’ve seen under the still relatively new Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA), which is what we used to call UTSA, or TUTSA or TTSA back when it was common law or Texas statutory law. In this case, a former employee is alleged to have taken the company’s trade secrets. Judge Mazzant authorized seizure of a laptop belonging to the company in the employee’s possession, but the laptop couldn’t be found, which set the stage for the injunction proceeding as well as additional excitement for the defendants’ electronic devices.
This opinion passing on a defendant’s motion for summary judgment as to a plaintiff’s claims of willful infringement dealt with a couple of interesting issues regarding the necessary prerequisites for a claim of willful infringement.