Cases from Texas

234th Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas
Trade Secret Holder Files for Injunctive Relief After Employee Confesses to Accepting Bribe from Competitor

On October 4, 2012, National Oilwell Varco LP (“NOV”) petitioned for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and Injunction against its competitor Ceram-Kote, Inc., (“Ceram-Kote”), Ceram-Kote’s President Kevin Freeman, and former NOV employee Nelson Calderon (collectively “Defendants”). NOV brought the suit in Texas State court to stop Ceram-Kote from producing a “knock-off blast unit” that Ceram-Kote allegedly misappropriated from NOV.

NOV claims that “Ceram-Kote along with its president, Kevin Freeman, secretly recruited and paid Nelson Calderson – while he was still working at [NOV] --to build a knock-off of a . . . sophisticated piece of [NOV] industrial machinery,” which was an NOV trade secret. Calderon had access to highly confidential information by virtue of his employment with NOV, and had signed multiple confidentially agreement with the company. After NOV received an anonymous tip about a possible knock-off blast unit at Ceram-Kote, it approached Calderon, who confessed to accepting a bribe from Freeman and providing him with confidential designs.

Per NOV’s filing: “Rather than investing in research and development themselves, they decided to cheat — by paying a [NOV] employee $40,000 to design a large scale blast unit for them by using [NOV's] proprietary technology.” In addition to NOV’s claim for misappropriation of trade secrets pursuant to the Texas Uniform Trade Secrets Act, NOV brought additional causes of action for breach of contract[s], tortious interference with a contract, conversion, conspiracy, unjust enrichment and constructive trust.

295th Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas
Baker Hughes Accuses Departing Scientist of Leaving Confidential Information

On August 6, 2012, Plaintiffs Baker Hughes Incorporated and Baker Petrolite Corporation (collectively “Baker”) filed an application seeking a temporary restraining order, and a temporary and permanent injunction against its former employee, Defendant Jun Tian (“Tian”). Plaintiffs allege Defendant misappropriated “confidential information and trade secrets, resigned from [Plaintiffs’ company], and went to work for a direct competitor, Multi-Chem Group LLC (‘Multi-Chem’).” Defendant has refused to return said information, and Plaintiffs seek to enjoin Tian from every using or disclosing it.

Plaintiffs offered specific details regarding the events leading up to the lawsuit. Tian was a Senior Development Engineer on Plaintiffs’ “Flow Assurance” work group, as part of which he played “a critical research and development role,” had access to confidential information and was “a listed inventor on several patents and patent applications.” Tian entered into an explicit “Employment Agreement” with Plaintiff that barred him from disclosing Plaintiffs’ confidential information. After resigning, Tian allegedly acted “suspiciously” and was “tight-lipped” at his exit interview. This, combined with reports from fellow employees that Tian had downloaded work files to an external harddrive prior to his departure, lead Plaintiffs to perform a forensics investigation of Tian’s harddrive. At the close of the investigation, Plaintiffs concluded that Defendant had transferred proprietary information to an external harddrive without authorization.

In addition to the trade secrets misappropriation claim, Plaintiffs also allege causes of action for breach of contract, threatened misappropriation/inevitable disclosure, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment and conversion.

One of the first issues that will likely arise is the fact that Plaintiffs did not specify exactly what confidential information Tian allegedly took. Plaintiffs are understandably hesitant to commit this information to public record, and will likely seek a protective order and/or in camera review by the Judge. Interestingly, even if Plaintiffs fail to prove that Tian took confidential information, the court could still bar Defendant from working at Multi-Chem through the inevitable disclosure claim.