Texas IP Law

IP Topics

Trade Secret Litigation in Texas.

A trade secret owner in Texas can sue under the Texas Uniform Trade Secrets Act (TUTSA), the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA), or both.

· Law checked through October 20, 2026

In Short

A trade secret owner in Texas can sue under the Texas Uniform Trade Secrets Act (TUTSA), the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA), or both. Cases often begin with an emergency request to stop a former employee, a business partner, or a competitor from using or disclosing the information. Since September 1, 2025, the Texas Business Court can hear trade secret cases in which more than $5 million is at stake, and Texas courts have a new procedure for keeping trade secrets sealed.

Common situations.

  • A sales executive leaves for a competitor after downloading customer files.
  • A joint-venture partner launches a competing product built on shared know-how.
  • A company hires an engineer and then receives a letter from the engineer's former employer.
  • A licensee keeps using confidential technology after the license ends.

The two statutes.

TUTSA DTSA
SourceTex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code ch. 134A18 U.S.C. §§ 1836-1839
CourtTexas state courts, including the Business Court; federal court as a supplemental claimFederal court; requires a product or service used in, or intended for use in, interstate or foreign commerce (§ 1836(b)(1))
DeadlineThree years from discovery (§ 16.010)Three years from discovery (§ 1836(d))
DamagesActual loss and unjust enrichment, or a royalty; exemplary damages up to twice for willful and malicious misappropriation (§ 134A.004)Same structure (§ 1836(b)(3)(B)-(C))
Emergency seizureNoEx parte civil seizure in extraordinary circumstances (§ 1836(b)(2))
Effect on other claimsDisplaces conflicting Texas tort and restitution claims for misappropriation, but not contract claims (§ 134A.007)Does not displace state law (18 U.S.C. § 1838)

The Process

How a trade secret case unfolds.

  1. Discovery of the problem.

    Often a forensic review after an employee departs.

  2. Demand and preservation letters.

    To the former employee and, often, the new employer.

  3. Emergency relief.

    A temporary restraining order, then a hearing on a temporary injunction.

  4. Identifying the secrets.

    The owner must describe each secret with reasonable particularity, usually early in the case.

  5. Discovery under a protective order.

    Forensic examination of devices and accounts; expert analysis.

  6. Trial.

    Usually to a jury, with separate questions for each claim and often each secret.

  7. Remedies and appeal.

    Damages, exemplary damages, fees, and a permanent injunction; appeal to a Texas court of appeals, the Fifteenth Court of Appeals (from the Business Court), or the Fifth Circuit.

Recent developments.

  • Business Court jurisdiction. H.B. 40 gave the Texas Business Court jurisdiction over actions relating to trade secrets, and certain other technology and IP disputes, where the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million (Tex. Gov't Code § 25A.004(d)(5)), effective September 1, 2025. Appeals go to the Fifteenth Court of Appeals (§ 25A.007(a)).
  • First Business Court jury verdict in Austin. In March 2026, a jury in the Business Court's Third Division found willful misappropriation in ES3 Minerals, LLC v. Kreines, No. 24-BC03B-0005. The judgment awarded about $44.4 million in actual damages, $9 million in exemplary damages, interest, fees, and a permanent injunction.
  • Sealing. H.B. 4081 added a procedure for sealing trade secrets in Texas courts, including an immediate appeal from orders on motions to unseal (Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 134A.0065), effective September 1, 2025.
  • Damages must match the secrets proven. The Fifth Circuit affirmed vacating a $75 million award because the damages model assumed ten secrets and the jury found only four (Trinseo Eur. GmbH v. Kellogg Brown & Root, L.L.C., No. 24-20460 (5th Cir. Jan. 21, 2026)).
  • Unjust enrichment by avoided costs. The Fifth Circuit allowed DTSA unjust-enrichment damages measured by the development costs a defendant avoided (Computer Scis. Corp. v. Tata Consultancy Servs. Ltd., No. 24-10749 (5th Cir. Nov. 21, 2025)). The Supreme Court denied review on June 15, 2026 (No. 25-1107). The Second Circuit has taken a different view (Syntel Sterling Best Shores Mauritius Ltd. v. TriZetto Grp., Inc., 68 F.4th 792 (2d Cir. 2023)).
  • Noncompetes. The FTC's nationwide noncompete rule was set aside, and on September 5, 2025, the FTC dropped its appeals and accepted the vacatur. Texas noncompetes remain governed by state law (Tex. Bus. & Com. Code §§ 15.50-15.52), including the 2025 limits on noncompetes for physicians and other health care practitioners in S.B. 1318.

Guides in this section.

Part I. Rights that can be enforced

Part II. The claims

Part III. Proof and defenses

Part IV. The process

Quick references.

Sources.

  • Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §§ 16.010, 134A.001-.008.
  • 18 U.S.C. §§ 1836-1839.
  • Tex. Gov't Code §§ 25A.004(d)(5), 25A.007(a); H.B. 40, 89th Leg., R.S. (2025).
  • H.B. 4081, 89th Leg., R.S. (2025).
  • Tex. Bus. & Com. Code §§ 15.50-15.52.
  • ES3 Minerals, LLC v. Kreines, No. 24-BC03B-0005 (Tex. Bus. Ct., 3d Div.).
  • 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).
  • Syntel Sterling Best Shores Mauritius Ltd. v. TriZetto Grp., Inc., 68 F.4th 792 (2d Cir. 2023).
  • FTC, press release, Federal Trade Commission Files to Accede to Vacatur of Non-Compete Clause Rule (Sept. 5, 2025).

Related reading.