Emergency Relief: TROs and Temporary Injunctions

Common situations.

• An owner learns on Friday that a former engineer starts at a competitor on Monday.
• A former employee is served with a TRO that bars contact with all former customers.
• A defendant wants to appeal a temporary injunction that shuts down a product line.

In Texas state courts and the Business Court.

Temporary restraining order. A TRO may issue without notice only if specific facts in an affidavit or verified petition clearly show immediate and irreparable injury before the other side can be heard. It expires by its terms within 14 days and may be extended once for a like period (Tex. R. Civ. P. 680). The applicant must post a bond (Rule 684).

Temporary injunction. After notice and a hearing, a court may enter a temporary injunction to preserve the status quo pending trial. The applicant must plead and prove (1) a cause of action against the defendant, (2) a probable right to the relief sought, and (3) a probable, imminent, and irreparable injury in the interim (Butnaru v. Ford Motor Co., 84 S.W.3d 198 (Tex. 2002)). The hearing is an evidentiary hearing, often with live forensic and business witnesses.

Irreparable injury. Some Texas courts of appeals have presumed irreparable injury when a defendant possesses trade secrets and is in a position to use them (IAC, Ltd. v. Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc., 160 S.W.3d 191 (Tex. App.–Fort Worth 2005)). The Texas Supreme Court has since upheld the denial of a permanent injunction where the harm could be measured in damages (Pike v. Texas EMC Mgmt., LLC, 610 S.W.3d 763 (Tex. June 19, 2020)). Applicants should prove irreparable harm with evidence, such as lost customer goodwill or loss of exclusivity that cannot be measured, rather than rely on a presumption.

The order itself. Every injunction must state the reasons for its issuance, be specific in its terms, and describe in reasonable detail the acts restrained. A temporary injunction must also set the case for trial on the merits (Rule 683). Orders that fail these requirements are void. A bond is required (Rule 684).

Appeal. An order granting or denying a temporary injunction can be appealed immediately (Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 51.014(a)(4)); a TRO generally cannot. Appeals from the Business Court go to the Fifteenth Court of Appeals.

In federal court.

TROs and preliminary injunctions. Rule 65 governs. A TRO without notice expires within 14 days unless extended once for good cause (Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(2)). For a preliminary injunction, the movant must show a substantial likelihood of success, a substantial threat of irreparable injury, that the threatened injury outweighs any harm to the defendant, and that the injunction will not disserve the public interest (Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008); Janvey v. Alguire, 647 F.3d 585 (5th Cir. 2011)). Security is required (Rule 65(c)).

DTSA ex parte seizure. In extraordinary circumstances, a federal court may order law enforcement to seize property to prevent the spread of a trade secret (18 U.S.C. § 1836(b)(2)). The court must find, on specific facts, among other things, that a Rule 65 order would be inadequate because the defendant would evade it, that the defendant actually has the trade secret and the property, and that the defendant would destroy or hide it if given notice. The applicant must not have publicized the request. A hearing must be held within seven days, the applicant must post security, and a person harmed by a wrongful seizure may sue for damages. Courts grant seizure orders rarely; a TRO ordering preservation and return of information is the usual tool.

Limits on restraining employees.

• Texas. An injunction may not prohibit a person from using general knowledge, skill, and experience acquired during employment (Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 134A.003(a)).
• Federal. A DTSA injunction may not prevent a person from entering an employment relationship. Conditions on employment must be based on evidence of threatened misappropriation, not merely on what the person knows, and may not conflict with state laws prohibiting restraints on a lawful profession, trade, or business (18 U.S.C. § 1836(b)(3)(A)(i)).
• Noncompetes. An employer seeking to enforce a noncompete must meet the separate requirements of Tex. Bus. & Com. Code §§ 15.50-15.52. See Misappropriation and Related Claims.

Typical terms of an emergency order.

• Preserve all devices, accounts, and documents.
• Do not use or disclose identified confidential information.
• Return company information and devices, often to a neutral forensic examiner.
• Submit devices and accounts for forensic imaging under an agreed protocol.
• In narrower cases, refrain from soliciting specified customers.

Sources.

• Tex. R. Civ. P. 680, 683, 684.
• Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §§ 51.014(a)(4), 134A.003(a).
• Fed. R. Civ. P. 65.
• 18 U.S.C. § 1836(b)(2), (b)(3)(A)(i).
• Tex. Bus. & Com. Code §§ 15.50-15.52.
• Butnaru v. Ford Motor Co., 84 S.W.3d 198 (Tex. 2002).
• IAC, Ltd. v. Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc., 160 S.W.3d 191 (Tex. App.–Fort Worth 2005).
• Pike v. Texas EMC Mgmt., LLC, 610 S.W.3d 763 (Tex. 2020).
• Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008).
• Janvey v. Alguire, 647 F.3d 585 (5th Cir. 2011).

This guide is general information, not legal advice. Law checked through October 20, 2026. See the Disclaimer.