Sec. 31.05. THEFT OF TRADE SECRETS. (a) For purposes of this section:
(1) "Article" means any object, material, device, or substance or any copy thereof, including a writing, recording, drawing, sample, specimen, prototype, model, photograph, microorganism, blueprint, or map.
(2) "Copy" means a facsimile, replica, photograph, or other reproduction of an article or a note, drawing, or sketch made of or from an article.
(2-a) "Foreign agent" means an officer, employee, proxy, servant, delegate, or representative of a foreign government.
(2-b) "Foreign government" has the meaning assigned by Section 51B.001, Education Code.
(2-c) "Foreign instrumentality" means an agency, bureau, ministry, component, institution, association, or legal, commercial, or business organization, corporation, firm, or entity that is substantially owned, controlled, sponsored, commanded, managed, or dominated by a foreign government.
(3) "Representing" means describing, depicting, containing, constituting, reflecting, or recording.
(4) "Trade secret" means the whole or any part of any scientific or technical information, design, process, procedure, formula, or improvement that has value and that the owner has taken measures to prevent from becoming available to persons other than those selected by the owner to have access for limited purposes.
(b) A person commits an offense if, without the owner's effective consent, he knowingly:
(1) steals a trade secret;
(2) makes a copy of an article representing a trade secret; or
(3) communicates or transmits a trade secret.
(c) An offense under this section is a felony of the third degree, except that the offense is a felony of the second degree if it is shown on the trial of the offense that the person who committed the offense intended to benefit a foreign agent, foreign government, or foreign instrumentality.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.
Amended by:
Acts 2025, 89th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1071 (H.B. 127), Sec. 3, eff. September 1, 2025.
Acts 2025, 89th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1071 (H.B. 127), Sec. 4, eff. September 1, 2025.
Notes of Decisions
M-I LLC v. Stelly, 733 F. Supp. 2d 759 (S.D. Tex. 2010).
· cites it 3× “Texas Theft Liability Act Defendants argue that there are no allegations in support of an unlawful appropriation of trade secrets under Texas Penal Code § 31.05, which is required in order to support M-I’s Texas Theft Liability Act claim.”
Weightman v. State, 975 S.W.2d 621 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998).
· cites it 3× “Tex. Penal Code Ann. §§ 31.05 and 32.43(c)(Vernon 1989).”
McGowan v. State, 938 S.W.2d 732 (Tex. App. 1997).
· cites it 3× “" See TEX.PENAL CODE ANN. § 31.05(a)(4). The record reflects that at the direction of Eugene Holler, an engineer with Dresser-Rand, the undercover operative investigating *737 Weightman requested specific Dresser-Rand part numbers from Weightman.”
Twister B v. v. Newton Rsch. Partners, LP, 364 S.W.3d 428 (Tex. App. 2012).
· cites it 3× “The Texas Theft Liability Act imposes civil liability for, among other actions, “unlawfully appropriating property” as described by Texas Penal Code section 31.05. Id. §§ 134.”
Mandel v. Thrasher (In Re Mandel), 578 F. App'x 376 (5th Cir. 2014).
· cites it 2× “The TTLA imposes civil liability for “unlawfully appropriating property” as defined by Texas Penal Code § 31.05. 8 Under § 31.05, a person commits theft of trade secrets if, without the trade secret owner’s consent, he knowingly (1) steals a trade secret, (2) makes a copy of an…”
IBP, Inc. v. Klumpe, 101 S.W.3d 461 (Tex. App. 2001).
“See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 31.05 (b) (Vernon 1994).”
Schalk v. State, 767 S.W.2d 441 (Tex. App. 1988).
· cites it 3× “Specifically, appellant was indicted under Texas Penal Code section 31.05 for knowingly making a copy of five separately identified computer programs that were the trade secrets of his employer.”
Leonard v. State, 767 S.W.2d 171 (Tex. App. 1988).
· cites it 3× “Specifically, appellant was indicted under Texas Penal Code section 31.05 for knowingly making a copy of five separately identified computer programs that were the trade secrets of his employer.”
— Tex. Penal Code § 31.05(a) — 2 cases
Schalk v. State, 767 S.W.2d 441 (Tex. App. 1988).
“Specifically, appellant was indicted under Texas Penal Code section 31.05 for knowingly making a copy of five separately identified computer programs that were the trade secrets of his employer.”
Leonard v. State, 767 S.W.2d 171 (Tex. App. 1988).
“Specifically, appellant was indicted under Texas Penal Code section 31.05 for knowingly making a copy of five separately identified computer programs that were the trade secrets of his employer.”
— Tex. Penal Code § 31.05(a)(2) — 1 case
— Tex. Penal Code § 31.05(a)(4) — 1 case
McGowan v. State, 938 S.W.2d 732 (Tex. App. 1997).
“" See TEX.PENAL CODE ANN. § 31.05(a)(4). The record reflects that at the direction of Eugene Holler, an engineer with Dresser-Rand, the undercover operative investigating *737 Weightman requested specific Dresser-Rand part numbers from Weightman.”
— Tex. Penal Code § 31.05(b) — 2 cases
McGowan v. State, 938 S.W.2d 732 (Tex. App. 1997).
“" See TEX.PENAL CODE ANN. § 31.05(a)(4). The record reflects that at the direction of Eugene Holler, an engineer with Dresser-Rand, the undercover operative investigating *737 Weightman requested specific Dresser-Rand part numbers from Weightman.”
— Tex. Penal Code § 31.05(b)(1) — 2 cases
— Tex. Penal Code § 31.05(b)(2) — 3 cases
Schalk v. State, 767 S.W.2d 441 (Tex. App. 1988).
“Specifically, appellant was indicted under Texas Penal Code section 31.05 for knowingly making a copy of five separately identified computer programs that were the trade secrets of his employer.”
Leonard v. State, 767 S.W.2d 171 (Tex. App. 1988).
“Specifically, appellant was indicted under Texas Penal Code section 31.05 for knowingly making a copy of five separately identified computer programs that were the trade secrets of his employer.”
— Tex. Penal Code § 31.05(b)(3) — 1 case
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.