A non-compete that bars an employee from working in the industry in any capacity is generally an impermissible “industry-wide exclusion” under Texas law.
The Texas Supreme Court’s opinion in Mercedes-Benz v. Carduco is part of a trend carving back the “fraudulent inducement” theory in business transactions.
The Texas legislature, the Dallas Court of Appeals, and the Fifth Circuit have combined to tame the statute that once swept through Texas litigation like a prairie fire.
Are you a Texas business, or a lawyer who represents Texas businesses in litigation? Get ready for federal-style motions to dismiss to become routine in state court litigation.
If your contract has a standard “disclaimer of reliance,” does that mean the other party can’t sue you for fraudulent inducement?
The Federalization of the Texas discovery rules is coming. Most of the changes look good, but limiting parties to 25 requests for production?
Check out this updated version of our popular “Trade Secrets 101” memo.
It’s Franken-steen First let’s get something out of the way. The Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA) is a Frankenstein’s monster that the legislature created and now needs to reign in (not that they listen to me). As I explained in a three-part series back in the summer of 2017, the TCPA grants defendants in certain cases the unusual right to require the plaintiff to prove its case before taking any discovery. In litigator jargon, it effectively lets the defendant file a “no-evidence” motion for summary judgment without first requiring an adequate time for discovery. The statute was intended to curtail […]
In Motion Medical Technologies v. Thermotek, the Fifth Circuit reversed a jury’s award of over $1.5 million in fraud damages because the award was based on evidence of gross profits, not net profits.
Tenth Circuit holds that plaintiff must prove irreparable harm to get a preliminary injunction under the Defend Trade Secrets Act