-
Texas Business Court Retains Jurisdiction Over Employee-Raiding Suit, Finding Intellectual Property Nexus Despite Absence Of Standalone Trade-Secret Claim
04/23/2026Alamo Title Company sued WFG National Title Company in a Bexar County district court, alleging that WFG orchestrated a “mass raid” of its employees and customers. Alamo Title Company v. WFG National Title Company of Texas, LLC, 2026 Tex. Bus. 6 (4th Div. Feb. 3, 2026). Plaintiff asserted claims for tortious interference with existing and prospective customer contracts, conspiracy, and aiding and abetting defendant’s breach of fiduciary duties, but notably did not assert a standalone trade secret misappropriation claim.
Defendant removed the case to the Texas Business Court based on the Court’s enabling statute, which grants jurisdiction if the suit involves (1) an amount-in-controversy of over $5 million and (2) at least one of the enumerated topics in the relevant portions of the Texas Government Code’s Chapter 25A. Tex. Gov’t Code § 25A.004(b),(d). Plaintiff then moved to remand the suit back to the original court based on lack of jurisdiction.
The Business Court denied the motion to remand, holding that both jurisdictional prerequisites under Texas Government Code Chapter 25A were satisfied.
Due to plaintiff’s silence as to whether the suit satisfied the amount-in-controversy, and its inability to prove that defendant’s amount-in-controversy pleadings were either fraudulent or under the $5 million threshold, the Court found that defendant’s removal notice controlled. As the removal notice pled over $5 million, the Court determined that the amount-in-controversy was met.
With respect to the substantive jurisdictional requirement regarding relevant topics in the Texas Government Code, the Court identified two independent statutory bases.
First, under Section 25A.004(b)(5), the suit alleged that a managerial official breached fiduciary duties owed to plaintiff by reason of his status as president.
Second, under Section 25A.004(d)(4)—which confers jurisdiction over actions “arising out of or relating to the ownership, use, licensing, lease, installation, or performance of intellectual property,” including trade secrets as defined by the Texas Uniform Trade Secrets Act ("TUTSA"), the Court found an independent basis for jurisdiction. Plaintiff argued that the IP provision should not apply because it brought no standalone misappropriation claim. The Court disagreed, emphasizing that the statute uses the disjunctive phrase “relating to,” which Texas courts construe broadly to require no more than a tangential relationship. And, further, plaintiff’s pleadings were replete with allegations concerning defendant’s misuse of plaintiff’s confidential information, including customer lists, operational data, and compensation details, making the connection to intellectual property central rather than tangential. The Court therefore concluded that the suit “related to” intellectual property ownership and use, regardless of whether a discrete TUTSA claim was pleaded.
This decision signals that plaintiffs alleging misappropriation of confidential business information, even through traditional tort claims rather than trade secret causes of action, may be subject to removal to the Texas Business Court if the factual allegations implicate intellectual property ownership or use. Practitioners should be aware that the “relating to” language in Section 25A.004(d)(4) casts a wide net, and that the Texas Business Court will look to the substance of the pleaded facts to determine jurisdiction. Further, the Court’s holding that its jurisdiction extends to the entire action, not just to the IP-related claims, means that, once an IP nexus is established, all joined claims remain before the Texas Business Court.
This ruling positions the Texas Business Court as an increasingly important venue for trade secrets disputes and, potentially, patent-adjacent litigation in Texas. While the Court’s IP jurisdiction has focused on the TUTSA to date, the broad “relating to” framework extends to certain patent-related disputes rooted in contracts and ownership and breaches of patent or other IP licensing agreements involving royalties or scope of use.
