Trade-secret and non-compete cases are decided in their first three weeks. Whoever gets to the courthouse with admissible evidence and a workable proposed order sets the terms of everything that follows.
We prosecute and defend claims for trade secret misappropriation, breach of non-compete and non-solicitation agreements, breach of confidentiality obligations, tortious interference, and unfair competition — including the emergency relief that goes with them.
What the first two weeks look like
- Forensic preservation. Litigation hold, imaging of devices and cloud accounts, and preservation letters to the new employer. Evidence that is not preserved in week one is usually not available in month six.
- Prove the taking, not the suspicion. Exfiltration logs, USB history, mailbox forwarding rules, and download records. A TRO application built on “he must have taken it” gets denied and costs you the initiative.
- Draft the order you can actually live with. Overbroad injunctions get dissolved. We draft relief narrow enough to be granted and specific enough to enforce.
- Expedited discovery. Targeted depositions and forensic inspection on a compressed schedule, timed to the temporary-injunction setting.
- Decide, early, whether this is a case or a negotiation. Many of these matters should end in a tight agreed order in month two. We tell clients when that is the right answer.
Defending the other side of it
We also represent departing employees and their new employers. The common scenarios are an unenforceable or overbroad restraint, an employer that cannot identify with particularity what was taken, general knowledge and skill mischaracterized as a trade secret, and a former employer using a TRO as a competitive weapon. Each requires a different response, and the response has to be filed on the same compressed timetable.
Representative results
Injunction obtained barring a competitor formed by former officers from contacting customers
Order enjoining a company created by former officers and employees from soliciting former customers in non-compete and trade-secret litigation.
Power Research, Inc. v. Newport Fuel Solutions, Inc., No. CV18-02401, Second Judicial District Court, Washoe County, Nevada (Mar. 11, 2019).
Fiduciary-duty and trade-secret claims resolved and dismissed with prejudice
Claims against a former office manager and her start-up company in a suit seeking injunctive relief.
Maintenance of Way Equipment Services, LLC v. Garcia, No. 24-DCV-321736, 434th District Court, Fort Bend County, Texas (Nov. 26, 2024).
Defense of competitor’s trade-secret and unfair-competition claims resolved on favorable terms
Defended clients against a competitor and former employer asserting breach of contract, tortious interference, breach of fiduciary duty, misappropriation of trade secrets, and related unfair-competition claims.
Harris County, Texas (2022). Matter identified on request.
Each matter depends on its own facts and law. Prior results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome in any other matter.