CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

S & D Trading Academy, LLC v. Aafis, Inc.

Plaintiffs S & D Trading Academy, LLC, and S & D Global Trading, Inc. (collectively, "S & D") brought an action against AAFIS, Inc., Helen Shih, and Marty Shih for breach of contract and misappropriation of trade secrets. Defendant AAFIS filed motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, insufficient service of process, improper venue, and *forum non conveniens*, arguing that the case should be heard in China. The court found that AAFIS had sufficient minimum contacts with Texas to establish specific jurisdiction for both claims, as the contract was negotiated, formed, and partially performed in Texas, and the alleged misappropriation of trade secrets began in Texas. The court also concluded that exercising jurisdiction in Texas would align with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice, considering Texas's interest in the dispute and the convenience for the plaintiffs. Therefore, the court denied all of AAFIS's motions to dismiss.

Personal JurisdictionForum Non ConveniensBreach of ContractTrade Secrets MisappropriationMotions to DismissMinimum ContactsDue ProcessSpecific JurisdictionService of ProcessImproper Venue
References
37
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Myriad Development, Inc. v. Alltech, Inc.

This case involves a dispute between Myriad Development, Inc. (Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant) and Alltech, Inc. (Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff) concerning three contracts: the APPRISE Agreement, AIMS Agreement, and Subcontract for Labor, as well as claims of trade secret misappropriation. Myriad alleged breach of contract and trade secret misappropriation, while Alltech filed counterclaims for breach of contract and conversion of photographs. The jury found Alltech materially breached the APPRISE and AIMS Agreements, and misappropriated Myriad's trade secrets. However, the Court, after review, ruled that Myriad could not recover lost profits for breach of the APPRISE and AIMS Agreements due to contract cancellation. The Court awarded Myriad $21,263 for unpaid amounts under the APPRISE Agreement, $198,110 for unpaid amounts under the Subcontract for Labor, and $250,000 in reasonable royalty for trade secret misappropriation. Alltech's counterclaims for conversion damages were denied due to insufficient evidence of fair market value.

Contract BreachTrade Secret MisappropriationLost ProfitsReasonable Royalty DamagesPunitive DamagesConversionAffirmative DefenseContract InterpretationRule 50(b) MotionJury Verdict
References
113
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 11, 2001

IBP, Inc. v. Klumpe

IBP, Inc. sued Steven M. Klumpe and his attorney Jeff Blackburn for misappropriation and theft of trade secrets, tortious interference, conversion, civil conspiracy, and breach of contract. Klumpe, an IBP superintendent, provided "Crewing Guides" containing IBP's alleged trade secrets to Blackburn, who then shared them with attorneys in a personal injury suit against IBP filed by Klumpe's stepson. Klumpe and Blackburn sought summary judgment, arguing litigation privilege and lack of evidence for IBP's claims, including commercial use of trade secrets and damages. The court affirmed summary judgment for Klumpe and Blackburn regarding the disclosure of the Guides and misappropriation of trade secrets, citing absolute privilege for communications in litigation. However, the court reversed and remanded other claims, including those related to Klumpe's alleged illegal taking of the Guides and Blackburn's potential complicity in a conspiracy to unlawfully obtain them, as these actions were not conclusively privileged.

Trade SecretsMisappropriationTheftLitigation PrivilegeAttorney LiabilityCivil ConspiracyBreach of ContractSummary JudgmentDiscovery ProcessDocument Production
References
57
Case No. 01-21-00089-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 10, 2022

TASF, LLC D/B/A Turnaround Special Forces, LLC Eddie Garza, Clint Dewispelaera, Alex Castillo and John Ruff v. Turn2 Specilaty Companies, LLC and Turn2 Workforce Solutions, LLC

The First District of Texas Court of Appeals reviewed a temporary injunction issued against TASF, LLC, and its principals for allegedly misappropriating trade secrets from Turn2 Specialty Companies, LLC and Turn2 Workforce Solutions, LLC. The misappropriated information included confidential base wage rates, billing rates, per diem amounts, contract terms, and vendor lists. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's finding that the information deserved trade secret protection and that Turn2 took reasonable steps to maintain secrecy. The court found one issue moot due to the expiration of a provision and modified the injunction to specifically define the protected trade secrets, ensuring clarity for the enjoined parties.

Trade SecretsTemporary InjunctionMisappropriationConfidential InformationProprietary InformationBusiness PracticesContract TermsBilling RatesVendor ListsBreach of Fiduciary Duty
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sorias v. National Cellular USA, Inc.

This is a patent infringement case where Plaintiffs Yeoshua Sorias and Zilicon Accessories LLC alleged patent infringement, trade secret misappropriation, and unfair competition against two groups of defendants: Prong Defendants (Yishai Z. Pliner, Lloyd Gladstone, and Prong, LLC) and NC Defendants (National Cellular USA, Inc., Mark Grossman, Zeev Grossman, and David Grossman). Plaintiffs claimed their patented detachably integrated battery charger design for mobile phones was infringed. The court granted Prong Defendants' motion for summary judgment of non-infringement on the design patent and dismissed unfair competition claims as federally preempted. For NC Defendants, the court dismissed claims regarding provisional patent rights and trade secret misappropriation, holding that a 'new product idea' is not a protected trade secret. All remaining state law claims against NC Defendants were dismissed without prejudice, with the court declining supplemental jurisdiction given ongoing state court litigation. The case is currently stayed pending a USPTO review of the '486 Patent.

Patent InfringementTrade Secrets MisappropriationUnfair CompetitionMotion to DismissSummary JudgmentDesign PatentProvisional Patent RightsLicense AgreementNon-Disclosure AgreementFederal Preemption
References
38
Case No. 18-CV-0361
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 06, 2018

Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. McDonnell

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) sued Patrick McDonnell and his company, CabbageTech, Corp. d/b/a Coin Drop Markets (CDM), alleging a deceptive and fraudulent virtual currency scheme. The defendants were accused of offering fraudulent trading and investment services related to virtual currency, misappropriating investor funds, and misrepresenting trading advice and future profits. The primary legal questions involved the CFTC's standing to sue and whether virtual currencies are considered commodities under the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA). The court affirmed both questions, finding that virtual currencies function as commodities and that the CFTC has jurisdiction over fraud in underlying spot markets, not just derivatives. Consequently, the court granted a preliminary injunction in favor of the CFTC and denied the defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, concluding there was a reasonable likelihood of continued CEA violations without the injunction.

Virtual CurrencyBitcoinLitecoinCommodity Exchange ActCFTC JurisdictionFraudMisappropriationPreliminary InjunctionSpot Market RegulationFinancial Technology
References
60
Case No. 05-18-01447-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 14, 2020

Snowhite Textile and Furnishings, Inc. v. Innvision Hospitality, Inc.

This case concerns a dispute between two competitors, Snowhite Textile and Furnishings, Inc. and Innvision Hospitality, Inc., in the furniture, fixture, and equipment (FF&E) industry. Innvision sued Snowhite for violations of the Texas Uniform Trade Secrets Act (TUTSA) and tortious interference with prospective business and existing contracts, alleging Snowhite misappropriated its bid proposal for the 'Odessa Project'. The district court rendered judgment in favor of Innvision. Snowhite appealed, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence for liability and damages, as well as the award of attorney's fees. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding sufficient evidence for trade secret misappropriation, tortious interference, damages, and willful and malicious misappropriation supporting attorney's fees.

Trade Secret MisappropriationTexas Uniform Trade Secrets ActTortious InterferenceProspective Business RelationsAppellate JudgmentSufficiency of EvidenceLost Profits DamagesAttorney's Fees AwardWillful MisappropriationConfidential Business Information
References
43
Case No. W2008-00936-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 28, 2010

The Hamilton-Ryker Group, LLC v. Tammy L. Keymon

This appeal involves a noncompete agreement and the Tennessee Trade Secrets Act. The defendant employee, Tammy L. Keymon, worked for the plaintiff employer, The Hamilton-Ryker Group, LLC, for fourteen years. Following a temporary layoff, Keymon solicited one of Hamilton-Ryker's clients, Verizon, and emailed numerous confidential documents from her work email to her personal email address. The trial court found Keymon liable for breach of contract, misappropriation of confidential information, and violation of the Tennessee Trade Secrets Act, awarding over $900,000 in doubled damages. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, upholding the enforceability of the noncompete clause despite lacking a territorial limitation, concluding that the emailed information constituted a trade secret, and supporting the damages award.

Noncompete ClauseTrade Secret MisappropriationBreach of Employment AgreementConfidential InformationUnfair CompetitionExemplary DamagesBusiness Relationships InterferenceEmployee Duty of LoyaltyDamages CalculationCustomer Solicitation
References
39
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

IAC, LTD. v. Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc.

This is an interlocutory appeal concerning a temporary injunction granted against appellants for using trade secrets related to Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc.'s helicopter blades. Appellants, including Van Horn Aviation, L.L.C. and IAC, Ltd., were developing a replacement blade using Bell's proprietary data and a Depot Maintenance Work Report (DMWR) for a similar helicopter model. Bell sued for trade secret misappropriation, unfair competition, and breach of contract. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding that Bell established a probable right to recover on its trade secret claim and demonstrated irreparable harm. The court also addressed appellants' complaints regarding the injunction's vagueness, witness exclusion, and bond amount, overruling all contentions.

Trade SecretsTemporary InjunctionMisappropriationIntellectual PropertyHelicopter BladesProprietary InformationAbuse of DiscretionIrreparable HarmConfidentiality AgreementCivil Procedure
References
34
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Universal Computer Systems, Inc. v. Dealer Solutions, L.L.C.

This case involves a trade secrets dispute between UCS (appellants) and DSI, Sterling McCall, BSI, and ADP (appellees) concerning computer software for car dealerships. The parties initially engaged in a lengthy discovery battle before agreeing to arbitrate their claims. The trial court had issued an order attempting to limit the evidence UCS could present during arbitration, which UCS argued was an improper discovery sanction. However, the arbitrators, despite this order, allowed UCS to present all its evidence. The arbitration panel ultimately found that UCS failed to prove its trade secret misappropriation claim, reasoning that its evidence did not adequately describe the overall structure, architecture, and design of its computer system as a whole. Additionally, the arbitrators concluded that, even if proven, the claim was preempted by federal copyright law. The trial court confirmed the arbitration award. On appeal, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that while the trial court's pre-arbitration discovery order was improper, it did not cause an improper judgment because the arbitrators considered all of UCS's evidence. The court also found no "gross mistake" in the arbitrators' decision regarding the trade secret claims or the preemption issue.

ArbitrationTrade SecretsDiscovery DisputeCopyright PreemptionSoftware MisappropriationAppellate ReviewArbitration Award ConfirmationGross Mistake StandardTexas General Arbitration ActEvidentiary Limits
References
26
Showing 1-10 of 697 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational