Guides · Trade Secret Litigation
Appeals in Trade Secret Cases
Trade secret cases produce two kinds of appeals: fast appeals of temporary injunctions early in the case, and appeals of final judgments after trial.
· Law checked through October 20, 2026
In Short
Trade secret cases produce two kinds of appeals: fast appeals of temporary injunctions early in the case, and appeals of final judgments after trial. Texas state cases go to one of the regional courts of appeals, or to the Fifteenth Court of Appeals if the case was in the Business Court. Federal cases go to the Fifth Circuit. Recent appeals have reversed or reduced several large Texas awards, most often over the jury questions or the damages model.
Common situations.
- A defendant wants to challenge a temporary injunction that bars it from selling a product.
- A party loses a jury verdict and wants to stop collection while it appeals.
- A trial court orders sealed exhibits unsealed.
Texas state courts.
| Question | Rule |
|---|---|
| Which court | One of the fourteen regional courts of appeals; the Fifteenth Court of Appeals has exclusive jurisdiction over appeals from the Business Court (Tex. Gov't Code §§ 22.220(d), 25A.007(a)). Further review is by petition to the Texas Supreme Court, which is discretionary |
| Appeals before final judgment | An order granting, denying, or dissolving a temporary injunction may be appealed immediately (Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 51.014(a)(4)). A TRO generally may not. An order on a motion to unseal under § 134A.0065 is a final, appealable judgment (§ 134A.0065(j)) |
| Deadlines | 30 days after judgment, or 90 days if a timely motion for new trial or similar motion is filed; 20 days for accelerated appeals, including temporary injunction appeals (Tex. R. App. P. 26.1) |
| Effect on the order | An accelerated appeal does not suspend the order unless the court orders otherwise (Tex. R. App. P. 29) |
| Review of temporary injunctions | Abuse of discretion; the appellate court does not decide the merits (Butnaru v. Ford Motor Co., 84 S.W.3d 198 (Tex. 2002)) |
| Review of verdicts | Legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence (City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005)); harmful charge error, including broad-form questions that mix valid and invalid theories (Crown Life Ins. Co. v. Casteel, 22 S.W.3d 378 (Tex. 2000)) |
| Suspending a money judgment | A supersedeas bond covering compensatory damages, interest, and costs, but not exemplary damages, capped at the lesser of 50 percent of the debtor's net worth or $25 million (Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 52.006) |
Federal courts.
| Question | Rule |
|---|---|
| Which court | The Fifth Circuit (28 U.S.C. § 1291). If the case also includes a claim arising under the patent laws, the appeal goes to the Federal Circuit (§ 1295(a)(1)) |
| Appeals before final judgment | Orders granting or denying preliminary injunctions (§ 1292(a)(1)) |
| Deadline | 30 days after entry of judgment (Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A)) |
| Stays | A bond or other security to stay a money judgment; motions to stay an injunction go first to the district court (Fed. R. Civ. P. 62; Fed. R. App. P. 8) |
| Review | Injunctions for abuse of discretion; jury verdicts for sufficiency of the evidence; expert rulings for abuse of discretion |
Arbitration awards.
A court may vacate an arbitration award only on narrow grounds, such as fraud, evident partiality, or the arbitrators exceeding their powers; legal or factual error is not enough, and parties cannot expand those grounds by contract under the Federal Arbitration Act (9 U.S.C. § 10; Hall Street Assocs., L.L.C. v. Mattel, Inc., 552 U.S. 576 (2008); see Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 171.088).
What recent appeals show.
- The jury questions matter. A $706 million Texas verdict was reversed because a broad-form misappropriation question included an unsupported theory (Title Source, Inc. v. HouseCanary, Inc., No. 04-19-00044-CV (Tex. App.–San Antonio June 3, 2020)). The retrial produced a $175 million verdict in March 2026.
- The damages model must match the verdict. The Fifth Circuit affirmed a take-nothing judgment after a jury found four of ten alleged secrets and the damages model valued all ten (Trinseo Eur. GmbH v. Kellogg Brown & Root, L.L.C., No. 24-20460 (5th Cir. Jan. 21, 2026)).
- Avoided costs can support a large award in the Fifth Circuit. The court affirmed $56 million in avoided-cost damages and $112 million in exemplary damages, while narrowing the injunction (Computer Scis. Corp. v. Tata Consultancy Servs. Ltd., No. 24-10749 (5th Cir. Nov. 21, 2025), cert. denied (U.S. June 15, 2026)).
- Displacement can end extra claims. A Texas court of appeals held that TUTSA displaced conspiracy, civil-theft, and overlapping fiduciary claims (Coe v. DNOW LP, 718 S.W.3d 338 (Tex. App.–Houston [14th Dist.] 2025, pet. denied)).
Sources.
- Tex. Gov't Code §§ 22.220(d), 25A.007(a).
- Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §§ 51.014(a)(4), 52.006, 134A.0065(j), 171.088.
- Tex. R. App. P. 26.1, 29.
- 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291, 1292(a)(1), 1295(a)(1).
- 9 U.S.C. § 10.
- Fed. R. App. P. 4, 8; Fed. R. Civ. P. 62.
- Butnaru v. Ford Motor Co., 84 S.W.3d 198 (Tex. 2002).
- City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005).
- Crown Life Ins. Co. v. Casteel, 22 S.W.3d 378 (Tex. 2000).
- Hall Street Assocs., L.L.C. v. Mattel, Inc., 552 U.S. 576 (2008).
- Title Source, Inc. v. HouseCanary, Inc., No. 04-19-00044-CV (Tex. App.–San Antonio June 3, 2020).
- Trinseo Eur. GmbH v. Kellogg Brown & Root, L.L.C., No. 24-20460 (5th Cir. Jan. 21, 2026).
- Computer Scis. Corp. v. Tata Consultancy Servs. Ltd., No. 24-10749 (5th Cir. Nov. 21, 2025), cert. denied, No. 25-1107 (U.S. June 15, 2026).
- Coe v. DNOW LP, 718 S.W.3d 338 (Tex. App.–Houston [14th Dist.] 2025, pet. denied).
This guide is general information, not legal advice. Law checked through October 20, 2026. See the Disclaimer.