Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
17 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 1993–2026 6 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Texas courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Charles Watson v. Talia Heights, LLC, Talia Court, LLC and Mehta Real Estate, Ltdgreen2 sentences2023Watson v. Talia Heights, LLC, 566 S.W.3d 326, 329 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2018, no pet.). 2023Watson v. Talia Heights, LLC, 566 S.W.3d 326, 329 (Tex. App.— Houston [14th Dist.] 2018, no pet.) (citations omitted). | 5 | 5 |
Matthews v. Wozencraftgreen2 sentences2018Express One Int’l, Inc. v. Steinbeck, 53 S.W.3d 895, 900 (Tex. App.— Dallas 2001, no pet.) (citing Matthews v. Wozencraft, 15 F.3d 432, 437 (5th Cir. 1994)); see also Doggett v. Travis Law Firm, P.C., No. 01-17-00098-CV, 2018 WL 2141412 , at *3 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] May 10, 2018, pet. denied). 2015See Matthews v. Wozencraft, 15 F.3d 432, 437 (5th Cir. 1994). | 2 | 2 |
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of Cal., San Francisco Cty.green2 sentences2026Such a rule is inconsistent with the fact-specific nature of specific jurisdiction, could not be reconciled with federal due process, 131 and would result in exactly what specific-jurisdiction is designed to prevent: states with “little legitimate interest” in a suit encroaching on the jurisdiction of states more affected by the controversy. 132 Instead, federal due process and Texas precedent require this Court to examine whether CrowdStrike’s contacts with Texas are substantially related to the operative facts of GoSecure’s misappropriation claims in this case. 133 ¶45 GoSecure alleges three 2026Such a rule is inconsistent with the fact-specific nature of specific jurisdiction, could not be reconciled with federal due process, 131 and would result in exactly what specific-jurisdiction is designed to prevent: states with “little legitimate interest” in a suit encroaching on the jurisdiction of states more affected by the controversy. 132 Instead, federal due process and Texas precedent require this Court to examine whether CrowdStrike’s contacts with Texas are substantially related to the operative facts of GoSecure’s misappropriation claims in this case. 133 ¶45 GoSecure alleges three | 1 | 1 |
Eagle Oil & Gas Co. v. Shale Exploration, LLCgreen1 sentence2020On the contrary, this is an appeal of a judgment entered after trial on the merits, at which PLS had the burden to establish all elements of its TUTSA claim, including “use.” In a merits trial, “[a]ctual and unauthorized use of trade secrets must be proved to prevail on a misappropriation claim.” Eagle Oil & Gas Co. v. Shale Expl., LLC, 549 S.W.3d 256, 273 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2018, pet. dism’d). | 1 | 1 |
Washington DC Party Shuttle, LLC, Party Shuttle Tours, LLC and Creativerse Internet Systems, LLC v. Iguide Tours, LLC, Tyree Cook, and Abise Eshetugreen1 sentence2018See Wash. DC Party Shuttle, 406 S.W.3d at 740 . | 1 | 1 |
Express One International, Inc. v. Steinbeckgreen1 sentence2018Express One Int’l, Inc. v. Steinbeck, 53 S.W.3d 895, 900 (Tex. App.— Dallas 2001, no pet.) (citing Matthews v. Wozencraft, 15 F.3d 432, 437 (5th Cir. 1994)); see also Doggett v. Travis Law Firm, P.C., No. 01-17-00098-CV, 2018 WL 2141412 , at *3 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] May 10, 2018, pet. denied). | 1 | 1 |
Alcatel Usa, Inc., Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellee-Cross-Appellant v. Dgi Technologies, Inc., Defendant-Counter-Claimant-Appellant-Cross-Appelleegreen1 sentence2017Id. at 650–51; Efremov also cites the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Alcatel v. DGI Technologies, which held that the plaintiff’s state law misappropriation claim was preempted by the Copyright Act because the acts that formed the basis of plaintiff’s misappropriation claim “touched on interests protected by the Copyright 8 Act, including (1) the reproduction of its software, (2) the use of the software in the preparation of derivative works; and (3) the distribution of these works for commercial gain.” 166 F.3d 772, 789 (5th Cir. 1999). | 1 | 1 |
Rusty's Weigh Scales & Service, Inc. v. North Texas Scales, Inc.green1 sentence2015There is no misappropriation injury "in the air"; in trade secret cases, as in any other, "in order to recover any type of damages, a plaintiff must produce evidence from which the jury may reasonably infer that the damages sued for have resulted from the conduct of the defendant." (Rusty's Weigh Scales & Serv., Inc. v. N. Tex. Scales, Inc., 314 S.W.3d 105, 111 (Tex. App. - El Paso 2010, no pet.) (affirming judgment for trade secret defendant for plaintiff's failure to satisfy fourth element of damage caused BRIEF OF LAWYER CROSS-APPELLEES Page 54 by misappropriation).) While misappropriation | 1 | 1 |
Jay Fikes and Associates v. Waltongreen1 sentence2005Jay Filces and Associates v. Walton, 578 S.W.2d 885, 888 (Tex.Civ. | 1 | 1 |
Schuchart & Associates, Professional Engineers, Inc. v. Solo Serve Corp.green1 sentence1993In support of their proposition that the misappropriation doctrine has not been expressly embraced in Texas, Appellants cite Schuchart & Assoc. v. Solo Serve Corp., 540 F.Supp. 928, 944 (W.D.Tex.1982) (stating that Texas courts have not expressly embraced a cause of action for misappropriation). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Twister B v. v. Newton Research Partners, LP
green
2 sentences2026Misappropriation of trade secret ¶43 The nonresident defendants in both Twister and Technox argued that only the (alleged) acquisition and initial incorporation of the stolen trade secrets into their products—which occurred outside of Texas—were relevant and any subsequent use of the trade secrets in Texas was irrelevant. 128 Both courts rejected those arguments, holding that the subsequent marketing and sales could constitute improper “use” of trade secrets and provide a basis for liability. 129 But neither court ended their analysis there; both courts went onto examine the relationship betwe 2026Misappropriation of trade secret ¶43 The nonresident defendants in both Twister and Technox argued that only the (alleged) acquisition and initial incorporation of the stolen trade secrets into their products—which occurred outside of Texas—were relevant and any subsequent use of the trade secrets in Texas was irrelevant. 128 Both courts rejected those arguments, holding that the subsequent marketing and sales could constitute improper “use” of trade secrets and provide a basis for liability. 129 But neither court ended their analysis there; both courts went onto examine the relationship betwe | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Anambra State Community in Houston, Inc. v. Ulasi
green
1 sentence2018The Travis Law Firm also cites Anambra State Community in Houston, Inc. v. Ulasi , 412 S.W.3d 786 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2013, no pet.) in support of its argument that a corporation can maintain a misappropriation claim. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Daboub v. Gibbons
green
1 sentence2017Id. at 650–51; Efremov also cites the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Alcatel v. DGI Technologies, which held that the plaintiff’s state law misappropriation claim was preempted by the Copyright Act because the acts that formed the basis of plaintiff’s misappropriation claim “touched on interests protected by the Copyright 8 Act, including (1) the reproduction of its software, (2) the use of the software in the preparation of derivative works; and (3) the distribution of these works for commercial gain.” 166 F.3d 772, 789 (5th Cir. 1999). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Texas Integrated Conveyor Systems, Inc. v. Innovative Conveyor Concepts, Inc.
green
1 sentence2015Tex. Integrated, 300 S.W.3d at 366-67 . | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Moncrief Oil International, Inc. v. Oao Gazprom, Gazprom Export, LLC, and Gazprom Marketing & Trading, Ltd.
green
1 sentence2015Moncrief, 414 S.W.3d at 154 . | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Gilmore v. Sammons
green
1 sentence1993Id. | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Synercom Technology, Inc. v. University Computing Co.
green
1 sentence1993Synercom Technology recognizes that “the misappropriation doctrine typically extends protection for a limited period of time to matters with time value.” Id. | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Loeb v. Turner
green
1 sentence1993Id. | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.