Tortious Interference Dallas Lawyer: Texas Unfair Competition Claims Can Be Asserted Even Without Enforceable Noncompete Agreement

Earlier this year, the Austin Court of Appeals handed down a very interesting opinion in a Texas misappropriation of trade secrets case.  This case demonstrates that even without an enforceable noncompete agreement, a Texas employer may be able to inhibit a former employee's ability to unfairly compete or use or disclose the employer's trade secrets.

In this case, a wholesale grocery distributor provided goods and services to customers including grocery and convenience store vendors.  The distributor had a contract with one of its vendors.  The contract allowed the vendor to audit the distributor's books.

The vendor informed the distributor that it wished to audit the latter's books.  The distributor learned that three of its former employees were going to be involved in the audit.  These former employees had been given access to the distributor's confidential information, including its confidential customer, vendor, and pricing information.  The distributor sued its former employees for misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of fiduciary duty, conspiracy, and tortious interference.  The distributor obtained a temporary restraining order and then a temporary injunction, to keep its former employees from using or disclosing the distributor's confidential information.

The court of appeals affirmed the trial court's injunction.  In doing so, the court noted, "It is well established that even without an enforceable contractual restriction, `a former employee is precluded from using for his own advantage, and to the detriment of his former employer, confidential information or trade secrets acquired by or imparted to him in the course of his employment.'"  The court observed that the employees had agreed to abide by a "confidentiality agreement that restricted disclosure" of their former employer's confidential information.

In upholding the injunction, the court explained that the distributorship could prove irreparable harm:  "It is a reasonable inference that if Hill and McKinney were to impermissibly use McLane's trade secrets to perform an audit, the resulting damages would be difficult to calculate.  Because the very purpose of the injunction is to prevent disclosure of trade secrets pending trial, plaintiffs need not demonstrate prior to a trial on the merits that a trade secret has actually been misappropriated.  Instead, `harm to the trade secret owner may be presumed when a defendant possesses trade secrets and is in a position to use them."

OBSERVATION:

Often, an employer will not have its former employee bound by an enforceable noncompete agreement.  In such instances, the employer may have to assert tort theories--such as tortious interference, breach of fiduciary duty, or theft of trade secrets--and seek injunctive relief and damages.  The key point is, an employer is not necessarily powerless against employees who are unfairly competing with it, even if there is no noncompete agreement in place.

 

Dallas Texas Trade Secret Attorney: Theft of Trade Secrets Overview

Even absent an enforceable noncompete agreement, a Texas employer may be able to prevent, or recover damages for, certain forms of unfair competition. For example, an employer may have a claim against a former employee for taking, using or disclosing and wrongfully using the employer's confidential or proprietary information.

In Texas, a claim for misappropriation of trade secrets involves the following elements:  (1) the existence of a trade secret; (2) a breach of a confidential relationship or improper discovery of the trade secret; and (3) use of the trade secret without authorization.  A trade secret is "any formula, pattern, device, or compilation of information which is used in one's business, and which gives him an opportunity to obtain an advantage over competitors who do not know or use it."  Although employers are entitled not to have their trade secrets misappropriated, former employees are allowed to use the general knowledge, skills, and experience acquired during employment to compete with a former employer.

Texas courts examine the following criteria in determining whether information is entitled to trade secret protection:  (1) the extent to which the information is known outside the employer's business; (2) the extent to which it is known by employees and others involved in the employer's business; (3) the measures taken by the employer to guard the secrecy of the information; (4) the value of the information to the employer and its competitors; (5) the amount of effort or money expended by the employer in developing the information; and (6) the ease or difficulty with which the information could be properly acquired or duplicated by others.

A frequently-litigated issue involves whether a customer list, or information about a customer, is a trade secret. There is no easy answer to this question, and the particular facts of each case must be examined.  One thing Texas cases are clear about is that, for something to be treated as a trade secret, it must actually be secret. Texas cases routinely consider these factors when determining whether a customer list is a trade secret: (1) what steps, if any, an employer has taken to maintain the confidentiality of a customer list; (2) whether a departing employee acknowledges that the customer list is confidential; and (3) whether the content of the list is readily ascertainable.  The last factor is heavily litigated, as employees often contend that the identities of customers can be found in public sources, such as telephone books.

Regarding the second element-breach of a confidential relationship or improper discovery of the trade secret-a person is liable for disclosure or use of trade secrets if he either (1) discovers the secret by improper means or (2) after properly acquiring knowledge of the secret, he breaches a confidence reposed in him.

If an employer proves that its trade secrets have been misappropriated, it may seek damages and injunctive relief.  Obtaining injunctive relief requires proving that, absent the relief, irreparable harm will occur.  However, courts have held that the threatened disclosure of trade secrets constitutes irreparable injury as a matter of law.
 

www.felllawfirm.com