Clients turn to us when trade secrets and competitive advantage are on the line. We are nationally recognized for litigating—and winning—complex trade secret and non-compete disputes, including cases involving allegations of misappropriation, employee raids, and breaches of fiduciary duty.
Across industries, companies rely on our trial-tested team to protect their most valuable business assets. Beyond the courtroom, we advise companies and senior executives on non-compete and trade secret issues, and our lawyers are widely regarded as thought leaders, regularly presenting at CLE programs nationwide.
Our results in this area have been featured in such publications as The National Law Journal, Texas Lawyer, The Wall Street Journal, and the Houston Business Journal. Some recent examples victories include:
- CAM Industrial Solutions et al v. Brown & Root Industrial Services, LLC et al. Delivered a complete defense victory for Brown & Root in a plaintiff-friendly venue, defeating over $200 million in trade secret, fraud, and fiduciary duty claims and securing a no-liability verdict on every claim after a four-week jury trial.
- International Medical Devices, Inc. et al v. Cornell, M.D., et al. Delivered a complete appellate victory for Augmenta at the Federal Circuit in a case involving alleged theft of four distinct trade secrets, erasing a $18.3 million judgment and permanent injunction when the Federal Circuit ruled that none of the asserted designs constituted trade secrets.
- DNOW LLP v. Toby Eoff et al. After a dozen former executives and employees left DNOW with trade secret information, AZA won an unprecedented temporary injunction against not just the former employees, but the company they went to work for. In only months after filing suit, AZA then won a unanimous jury verdict on behalf of DNOW against the former executives and employees on claims of trade secret misappropriation and breach of fiduciary duty, holding defendants liable for stealing critical proprietary information and awarding $9 million in actual and punitive damages as well as attorneys’ fees.
For many of these matters, the preliminary or temporary injunctive relief stage is critical and can make the difference between winning and losing. AZA’s lawyers are routinely asked to jump into complex and contentious fact patterns, and conduct fast paced mini trials to seek or defend against injunctive relief. Some examples of our success include:
- Woodbolt Holdings LLC et al v. Thomas et al. With only two weeks to prepare, AZA defeated a preliminary injunction request brought by Nutrabolt, a billion-dollar sports nutrition and energy drink brand, against former executives who left to join another emerging beverage business. Nutrabolt claimed the executives stole trade secrets and breached their non-competes, but a heavily contested, multi-day hearing resulted in the Court denying injunctive relief its entirety in favor of AZA’s clients.
- American Risk Insurance Co. Inc. v. Porch Grp. Inc. et al. AZA helped American Risk Insurance Co. obtain sweeping temporary injunctive relief against competitor Porch Group and two former executives. The injunction AZA won not only included non-disclosure restrictions for AZA’s client’s trade secret customer data and underwriting playbook, but also non-solicitation protections despite not having a non-solicitation agreement, as well as an order for the immediate forensic searches of defendants’ accounts and devices to remediate AZA’s client’s confidential materials. This is one of the first injunctions of such expansive scope won in the newly formed Texas Business Courts.
- C&J Energy Services Inc. et al. v. Ulate, Hattenbach, and West Texas Cementers, LLC. After two of its former executives absconded with confidential customer data to start a competing business in violation of their restrictive covenants, C&J Energy hired AZA to enforce its contract rights and protect its intellectual property. In less than a month, AZA managed to marshal the evidence, file suit, set and conduct a multi-day evidentiary hearing, and achieve a comprehensive injunction that not only banned defendants from soliciting any C&J customers, but also effectively shut down the defendants’ competing business within C&J’s geographic zone of operations.
