Guides · Trade Secret Litigation
Trade Secret Remedies
A trade secret owner may obtain an injunction, damages for its own loss and for the defendant's unjust enrichment (or a reasonable royalty), exemplary damages up to twice that amount for willful and malicious misappropriation, and in some cases attorney's fees.
· Law checked through October 20, 2026
In Short
A trade secret owner may obtain an injunction, damages for its own loss and for the defendant's unjust enrichment (or a reasonable royalty), exemplary damages up to twice that amount for willful and malicious misappropriation, and in some cases attorney's fees. Courts insist that damages match the secrets actually misappropriated and not overlap with relief an injunction already provides. Texas has produced several nine-figure trade secret awards, and several have been reduced or reversed.
Common situations.
- A defendant saved years of development work by using the owner's code, though the owner lost no sales.
- An owner wants both damages and an order stopping future use.
- A defendant argues that the secrets became public, so any injunction should end.
Injunctions.
- Scope. Actual or threatened misappropriation may be enjoined, but not a person's use of general knowledge, skill, and experience (Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 134A.003(a)). A DTSA injunction may not prevent a person from taking a job (18 U.S.C. § 1836(b)(3)(A)(i)).
- Duration. An injunction should end when the trade secret ceases to exist, but may continue for an additional reasonable period to eliminate the commercial advantage gained from the misappropriation (§ 134A.003(a)).
- Royalty instead of a ban. In exceptional circumstances, such as a defendant's good-faith reliance before learning of the misappropriation, a court may allow future use on payment of a reasonable royalty instead of prohibiting it (§ 134A.003(b); 18 U.S.C. § 1836(b)(3)(A)(iii)).
- Affirmative acts. A court may order steps to protect the secret, such as return or destruction of materials and certification of compliance (§ 134A.003(c); 18 U.S.C. § 1836(b)(3)(A)(ii)).
- No double recovery. An injunction should not bar future use that the owner has already been paid for through damages. In Computer Sciences Corp. v. Tata Consultancy Services Ltd., No. 24-10749 (5th Cir. Nov. 21, 2025), the Fifth Circuit affirmed the damages but ordered the injunction narrowed to remove that overlap.
Damages.
The owner may recover damages for actual loss, plus unjust enrichment not counted in actual loss, or, instead, a reasonable royalty for the unauthorized disclosure or use (§ 134A.004(a); 18 U.S.C. § 1836(b)(3)(B)).
| Measure | What it captures | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Actual loss | Lost profits, lost value of the secret, price erosion | Lost profits must be proved with reasonable certainty |
| Unjust enrichment | The defendant's profits from the secret, or costs it avoided by not developing the information itself | The Fifth Circuit allows avoided-development-cost awards under the DTSA without proof of harm beyond the owner's actual loss (CSC v. Tata). The Second Circuit requires harm beyond actual loss (Syntel Sterling Best Shores Mauritius Ltd. v. TriZetto Grp., Inc., 68 F.4th 792 (2d Cir. 2023)). The Supreme Court declined to resolve the split on June 15, 2026 |
| Reasonable royalty | What a willing licensee would have paid for the use | Must rest on evidence tied to the secret, such as comparable agreements applied correctly (Sw. Energy Prod. Co. v. Berry-Helfand, 491 S.W.3d 699 (Tex. 2016)) |
Match the secrets proven. Damages must reflect the value of the secrets actually found misappropriated. The Fifth Circuit affirmed vacating a $75 million award because the model assumed ten secrets and the jury found four (Trinseo Eur. GmbH v. Kellogg Brown & Root, L.L.C., No. 24-20460 (5th Cir. Jan. 21, 2026)). A Texas court of appeals has required the same (Coe v. DNOW LP, 718 S.W.3d 338 (Tex. App.–Houston [14th Dist.] 2025, pet. denied)).
Uncertainty. Some uncertainty in the amount does not bar recovery, but a flexible approach to damages is not justified when objective evidence of value exists (Berry-Helfand).
Exemplary damages.
If willful and malicious misappropriation is proved by clear and convincing evidence, the factfinder may award exemplary damages of up to twice the damages award (§ 134A.004(b); 18 U.S.C. § 1836(b)(3)(C)). In Texas state court, exemplary damages require a unanimous jury (Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 41.003(d)). Under the DTSA, exemplary damages and fees are not available against an employee who did not receive the required whistleblower-immunity notice (18 U.S.C. § 1833(b)(3)).
Attorney's fees.
A court may award reasonable fees to the prevailing party if a claim was made in bad faith, a motion to end an injunction was made or resisted in bad faith, or misappropriation was willful and malicious (§ 134A.005; 18 U.S.C. § 1836(b)(3)(D)).
Recent Texas results.
| Case | Court | Result |
|---|---|---|
| Computer Scis. Corp. v. Tata Consultancy Servs. Ltd. | Fifth Circuit, Nov. 21, 2025 | $56 million avoided-cost award and $112 million in exemplary damages affirmed; injunction narrowed; certiorari denied June 15, 2026 (No. 25-1107). The case was tried to a federal jury in Dallas in 2023. The plaintiff's counsel reported collecting more than $213 million on July 1, 2026 |
| Trinseo Eur. GmbH v. Kellogg Brown & Root, L.L.C. | Fifth Circuit, Jan. 21, 2026 | Vacatur of a $75 million award, and a take-nothing judgment, affirmed because the damages model valued ten secrets and the jury found four |
| HouseCanary, Inc. v. Amrock, LLC | 438th District Court, Bexar County, Mar. 6, 2026 | $175 million retrial verdict, after a $706 million verdict was reversed in 2020; appeal expected |
| ES3 Minerals, LLC v. Kreines | Texas Business Court, Third Division, March 2026 | Judgment of about $44.4 million in actual damages, $9 million in exemplary damages, fees, and a permanent injunction |
Sources.
- Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §§ 41.003(d), 134A.003, 134A.004, 134A.005.
- 18 U.S.C. §§ 1833(b), 1836(b)(3).
- 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).
- Syntel Sterling Best Shores Mauritius Ltd. v. TriZetto Grp., Inc., 68 F.4th 792 (2d Cir. 2023).
- Sw. Energy Prod. Co. v. Berry-Helfand, 491 S.W.3d 699 (Tex. 2016).
- Trinseo Eur. GmbH v. Kellogg Brown & Root, L.L.C., No. 24-20460 (5th Cir. Jan. 21, 2026).
- Coe v. DNOW LP, 718 S.W.3d 338 (Tex. App.–Houston [14th Dist.] 2025, pet. denied).
- HouseCanary, Inc. v. Amrock, LLC, No. 2016-CI-06300 (438th Dist. Ct., Bexar County, verdict Mar. 6, 2026).
- ES3 Minerals, LLC v. Kreines, No. 24-BC03B-0005 (Tex. Bus. Ct., 3d Div.).
This guide is general information, not legal advice. Law checked through October 20, 2026. See the Disclaimer.