January 21, 2026, opinions

Posted on by tadbartlett

Designated for publication

  • Trinseo Europe GmbH v. Kellogg Brown & Root, L.L.C., 24-20460, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • Ramirez, J. (Smith, Stewart, Ramirez) (oral argument), trade secrets
    • Affirming judgment as a matter of law vacating jury’s $75 million damages award on trade secrets misappropriation claim, and summary judgment dismissal of alternative misappropriation of confidential information claims.
    • Trinseo Europe GmbH sued KBR, Stephen Harper, and related consulting entities, alleging misappropriation of its polycarbonate manufacturing trade secrets under the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA). The technology at issue involved a detailed interfacial polycarbonate production process developed originally by Dow Chemical and later owned by Trinseo. A jury found that four of the ten alleged trade secrets — the Process Control Strategy, Phosgene Reactor, Oligomerization Reactor, and Steam Devolatilization Process — were valid and had been misappropriated, awarding Trinseo over $75 million in reasonable royalty and unjust enrichment damages.
    • After trial, the district court granted defendants’ motions for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) and vacated the damages award. It held that Trinseo’s damages expert had failed to apportion the alleged damages among the misappropriated trade secrets, a requirement the court derived from patent-law apportionment principles applied analogously in trade-secret cases. Because the expert’s model assumed misappropriation of all ten trade secrets, while the jury found only four to be misappropriated, the district court concluded there was no reasonable basis for the jury’s award and thus vacated it. The court also granted summary judgment that Trinseo’s alternative confidential-information claims were preempted by Texas’s trade secret statute, denied a motion for a new trial, and entered a permanent injunction barring use of the misappropriated trade secrets.
    • On appeal, Trinseo challenged the vacatur of damages and argued that the district court erred in applying strict apportionment rules from patent law to trade secret damages. The defendants cross-appealed aspects of the district court’s rulings, including liability findings and the permanent injunction. The Fifth Circuit reviewed the JMOL de novo, giving deferential treatment to the jury verdict where supported by evidence but independently assessing legal rulings.
    • The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision to vacate the jury’s damages award. It agreed that, following the court’s longstanding approach in University Computing Co., trade secret damages should be evaluated similar to patent damages, requiring apportionment where the misappropriated technology does not encompass the entirety of an accused product’s value. Because Trinseo’s expert gave the jury no methodology to apportion value among individual trade secrets, and the jury found misappropriation of only some alleged secrets, the damages model could not provide a reasonable basis for the award. The panel rejected Trinseo’s arguments based on differing approaches in other circuits and Texas cases, noting key distinctions in how apportionment was presented to juries in those decisions.
    • The Fifth Circuit also affirmed the district court’s summary judgment that Trinseo’s state-law confidential information claims were preempted, sustained the judgment as to the denial of a new trial, and upheld the permanent injunction. With these rulings, the court affirmed the district court’s judgment in its entirety.

Unpublished decisions

  • U.S. v. Galindo, 25-10724, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Stewart, Graves, Oldham) (no oral argument), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.