tutsa claim in Texas

2020See Super Starr Int’l, LLC v. Fresh Tex Produce, LLC, 531 S.W.3d 829, 843 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg 2017, no pet.) (holding that because a breach-of-fiduciary-duty claim “duplicate[d]” the TUTSA allegations, TUTSA’s preemption provision “preclude[d] the [] breach of fiduciary duty claim from serving as a basis for temporary injunctive relief”); see also Title Source, Inc. v. HouseCanary, Inc., No. 04-19-00044-CV, 2020 WL 5027667 , at *11 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Aug. 26, 2020, no pet. h.) (op. on reh’g) (noting that “[w]hen the gravamen of a common law claim duplicates a TUTSA claim, th

2020See Super Starr Int’l, LLC v. Fresh Tex Produce, LLC, 531 S.W.3d 829, 843 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg 2017, no pet.) (holding that because a breach-of-fiduciary-duty claim “duplicate[d]” the TUTSA allegations, TUTSA’s preemption provision “preclude[d] the [] breach of fiduciary duty claim from serving as a basis for temporary injunctive relief”); see also Title Source, Inc. v. HouseCanary, Inc., No. 04-19-00044-CV, 2020 WL 5027667 , at *11 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Aug. 26, 2020, no pet. h.) (op. on reh’g) (noting that “[w]hen the gravamen of a common law claim duplicates a TUTSA claim, th

2026Tony Gullo Motors I, LP. v. Chapa, 212 S.W.3d 299, 310 (Tex. 2006); see Lacore Enters., LLC v. Angles, No. 05-21-00798-CV, 2023 WL 2607562 , at *9 (Tex. App.—Dallas Mar. 23, 2023, no pet.) (mem. op.) (concluding that plaintiff’s allegation that wrongful disclosure of confidential information caused “the attorney’s fees that have been incurred [which] is evidence of damages” did not support TUTSA claim because “attorney’s fees incurred in a lawsuit are not actual damages.”).

2025CreateAI did not state a TUTSA claim because it failed to identify any actionable trade secrets;53 did not prove a probable TUTSA claim because it failed to show Bot Auto is in a position to use any “trade secrets”;54 and failed to prove any probable threat of imminent, irreparable harm.55 Further to its own lack of evidence, CreateAI also failed to rebut Bot Auto’s direct evidence—from the founder of both companies and creator of the technologies at issue—that the “trade secrets” are public and that, even if some portion were kept secret (of which there is no evidence), Bot Auto has no access

2025CreateAI did not state a TUTSA claim because it failed to identify any actionable trade secrets;53 did not prove a probable TUTSA claim because it failed to show Bot Auto is in a position to use any “trade secrets”;54 and failed to prove any probable threat of imminent, irreparable harm.55 Further to its own lack of evidence, CreateAI also failed to rebut Bot Auto’s direct evidence—from the founder of both companies and creator of the technologies at issue—that the “trade secrets” are public and that, even if some portion were kept secret (of which there is no evidence), Bot Auto has no access

2025CreateAI did not state a TUTSA claim because it failed to identify any actionable trade secrets;53 did not prove a probable TUTSA claim because it failed to show Bot Auto is in a position to use any “trade secrets”;54 and failed to prove any probable threat of imminent, irreparable harm.55 Further to its own lack of evidence, CreateAI also failed to rebut Bot Auto’s direct evidence—from the founder of both companies and creator of the technologies at issue—that the “trade secrets” are public and that, even if some portion were kept secret (of which there is no evidence), Bot Auto has no access

2025CreateAI did not state a TUTSA claim because it failed to identify any actionable trade secrets;53 did not prove a probable TUTSA claim because it failed to show Bot Auto is in a position to use any “trade secrets”;54 and failed to prove any probable threat of imminent, irreparable harm.55 Further to its own lack of evidence, CreateAI also failed to rebut Bot Auto’s direct evidence—from the founder of both companies and creator of the technologies at issue—that the “trade secrets” are public and that, even if some portion were kept secret (of which there is no evidence), Bot Auto has no access

2025Palliative Plus LLC v. A Assure Hospice, Inc., No. 03-23-00770-CV, 2025 WL 284920 , at *11 (Tex. App.—Austin Jan. 24, 2025, no pet. h.) (Field, J.) (citing Neurodiagnostic Consultants, LLC v. Nallia, No. 03-18-00609-CV, 2019 WL 4231232 , at *8 (Tex. App.—Austin Sept. 6, 2019, no pet.) (mem. 39 op.) (citing Trilogy Software, Inc. v. Callidus Software, Inc., 143 S.W.3d 452, 463 (Tex. App.—Austin 2004, pet. denied))). 1.

2025Palliative Plus LLC v. A Assure Hospice, Inc., No. 03-23-00770-CV, 2025 WL 284920 , at *11 (Tex. App.—Austin Jan. 24, 2025, no pet. h.) (Field, J.) (citing Neurodiagnostic Consultants, LLC v. Nallia, No. 03-18-00609-CV, 2019 WL 4231232 , at *8 (Tex. App.—Austin Sept. 6, 2019, no pet.) (mem. 39 op.) (citing Trilogy Software, Inc. v. Callidus Software, Inc., 143 S.W.3d 452, 463 (Tex. App.—Austin 2004, pet. denied))). 1.

2025Legacy Home Health Agency, Inc. v. Apex Primary Care, Inc., No. 13-13-00087-CV, 2013 WL 5305238 , at *2 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi-Edinburg 2013, pet. denied) (reversing a trade secret injunction where the applicant had only a “mere fear or apprehension of the possibility of injury”) (citing Frey v. DeCordova Bend Estates Owners Ass’n, 647 S.W.2d 246, 248 (Tex. 1983)). 2.

2024See USAA Tex. Lloyds Co. v. Menchaca, 545 S.W.3d 479 , 501 n.21 (Tex. 2018) (requiring proof that “plaintiff sustained damages as a result of the breach” as element of breach-of-contract claim); Reilly v. Premier Polymers, LLC, No. 14-19-00336-CV, 2020 Tex. App. LEXIS 9385 , at *10 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Dec. 3, 2020, pet. dism’d) (mem. op.) (requiring proof that misappropriation of trade secret “caused injury that warrants injunctive relief or damages” as element of TUTSA claim); Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Meadows, 877 S.W.2d 281, 282 (Tex. 1994) (requiring proof that material misrepres

2024See USAA Tex. Lloyds Co. v. Menchaca, 545 S.W.3d 479 , 501 n.21 (Tex. 2018) (requiring proof that “plaintiff sustained damages as a result of the breach” as element of breach-of-contract claim); Reilly v. Premier Polymers, LLC, No. 14-19-00336-CV, 2020 Tex. App. LEXIS 9385 , at *10 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Dec. 3, 2020, pet. dism’d) (mem. op.) (requiring proof that misappropriation of trade secret “caused injury that warrants injunctive relief or damages” as element of TUTSA claim); Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Meadows, 877 S.W.2d 281, 282 (Tex. 1994) (requiring proof that material misrepres

2021Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 462 S.W.2d 540, 545 (Tex. 1971), the RX Parties were required to give fair notice of the nature of their TUTSA claim and the relief sought, see Tex. R.

2021See Skrastina v. Breckinridge-Taylor Design, LLC, No. 05-17-00796-CV, 2018 WL 3078689 , at *10 (Tex. App.—Dallas June 20, 2018, no pet.) (mem. op.); Reynolds v. Murphy, 188 S.W.3d 252, 259 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2006, pet. denied) (op. on reh’g); see also City of Brownsville v. Alvarado, 897 S.W.2d 750 , 753–54 (Tex. 1995) (“A successful challenge to evidentiary rulings usually requires the complaining party to show that the judgment turns on the particular evidence excluded or admitted.”).

2021See Skrastina v. Breckinridge-Taylor Design, LLC, No. 05-17-00796-CV, 2018 WL 3078689 , at *10 (Tex. App.—Dallas June 20, 2018, no pet.) (mem. op.); Reynolds v. Murphy, 188 S.W.3d 252, 259 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2006, pet. denied) (op. on reh’g); see also City of Brownsville v. Alvarado, 897 S.W.2d 750 , 753–54 (Tex. 1995) (“A successful challenge to evidentiary rulings usually requires the complaining party to show that the judgment turns on the particular evidence excluded or admitted.”).

2020When applying the abuse-of-discretion standard, we will reverse “only if the trial court acted without reference to any guiding rules or principles such that the ruling was 11 arbitrary or unreasonable.” Id. at *2 (quoting Low v. Henry, 221 S.W.3d 609, 614 (Tex. 2007)).

2020On 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).