IP Law Daily, TRADE SECRETS—5th Cir.: $75M jury verdict for misappropriating polycarbonate production secrets was properly vacated, (Jan 23, 2026)

By Carolin Dennis, B.Sc., LL.B., LL.M.

The evidence of record did not establish that the district court abused its discretion in granting JMOL for the defendants.

In a trade secrets dispute over thermoplastics technology, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit declined to restore a $75 million jury award that had been thrown out by the district court. In the Fifth Circuit’s view, the district court did not err in granting judgment as a matter of law in favor of the defendants, vacating the damages awarded by the jury, granting summary judgment on the alternative misappropriation of confidential information claims, denying the plaintiff’s motion for a new trial, and entering a permanent injunction (Trinseo Europe GmbH v. Kellogg Brown & Root, L.L.C., No. 24-20460 (5th Cir. Jan. 21, 2026)).

Background. Trinseo Europe GmbH’s owned intellectual property related to the production of polycarbonate (PC), a form of thermoplastic used to make eyeglasses, glasses, and various other products. Trinseo obtained these rights by way of a complex history of assignments between various entities originating with Dow Chemical Company.

Stephen Harper worked as a chemical engineer for Dow for 23 years, until his retirement in 1999. He worked on Dow’s PC technology during the 1980s and helped develop a plant relevant to the dispute. Harper started consulting in the PC industry; in 2007 he presented information about Dow-type PC technology to a Chinese company and ultimately created a PC plant design package for it. In 2009, an American engineering firm hired Harper as a consultant. To help with the project, Harper formed Stephen Harper Consulting Incorporated (SHC) and hired a team of former Dow employees known as the “Tech Team.” Harper and the Tech Team created a process design package (PDP) that the American engineering firm could use to develop an engineering design package for a Chinese client. In 2017, Harper dissolved SHC and changed the company’s name to Polycarbonate Consulting Services, Incorporated (PCS).

Trinseo alleged that Kellogg Brown & Root, L.L.C. (KBR) hired several former employees of Dow, allegedly for their knowledge of trade secrets related to the manufacturing of PC. Trinseo filed a suit against KBR and Harper, SHC, and PCS. Trinseo alleged that the defendants and KBR misappropriated 10 of Trinseo’s trade secrets in violation of the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) and made Texas common law claims for misappropriation of confidential information, conversion, civil conspiracy, unjust enrichment, and vicarious liability.

Out of the 10 trade secrets alleged, the jury found only four qualified as trade secrets and that the defendants misappropriated all four of these secrets. Thus, the jury awarded Trinseo $50 million in reasonable royalty damages and $21,206,132 in unjust enrichment damages against KBR; $0 in unjust enrichment damages against Harper; $2,930,817 in unjust enrichment damages against SHC; and $2,549,706 in unjust enrichment damages against PCS. The jury also found by a preponderance of the evidence that Harper is responsible for the conduct of SHC and PCS.

After trial, KBR and the defendants moved for JMOL under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(b). The district court found that the jury’s liability and affirmative defense findings were supported by the evidence. The district court determined that Trinseo’s failure to apportion its trade secret damages, combined with the jury’s failure to find liability on all 10 alleged trade secrets was fatal. As a result, the district court granted judgment as a matter of law and vacated the reasonable royalty and unjust enrichment damages against KBR and the defendants. It also granted summary judgment on Trinseo’s alternative misappropriation of confidential information claims, denied Trinseo’s motion for a new trial, and entered a permanent injunction.

Trinseo appealed, arguing that the district court erred in granting JMOL and vacating the damages awarded by the jury. Trinseo also appealed the district court’s denial of a new trial on damages. KBR asserted that the district court abused its discretion in granting a permanent injunction.

JMOL. The Fifth Circuit found that because Trinseo only presented damage estimates that assumed misappropriation of 10 alleged trade secrets, the jury had no basis for awarding damages based on the misappropriation of only the four trade secrets it found. Therefore, the district court did not err in vacating the jury’s award of damages against KBR and the defendants. Further, as sufficient evidence existed for the jury to reasonably conclude that some of Trinseo’s information qualified as trade secrets and that KBR misappropriated those secrets, the district court did not err in denying KBR’s motion for JMOL concerning liability for trade secret misappropriation. Additionally, the jury had a reasonable basis for concluding that Trinseo did not discover, nor could have discovered through the exercise of reasonable diligence, Harper’s first alleged misappropriation before February 12, 2017. Thus, the district court did not err in denying JMOL on the defendants’ limitations defense.

Motion for a new trial on damages. Trinseo asserted that the district court retroactively applied new rules of law by requiring apportionment. The Fifth Circuit found that KBR raised the apportionment rule in a motion to exclude expert testimony approximately one year before trial. Further, the district court had expressly warned Trinseo more than a month before trial and multiple times thereafter that its “all-or-nothing approach” was a “gamble” and that the testimony of Trinseo’s expert would be “totally undermined” if Trinseo failed to obtain a verdict on all 10 of its alleged trade secrets. The Fifth Circuit determined that Trinseo has not shown that the district court abused its discretion by denying its motion for new trial. Nor has it shown that its decision to take the all-or-nothing approach in the face of longstanding precedent and the district court’s warning warrants a new trial to prevent injustice.

Misappropriation of confidential information claims. Trinseo appealed the district court’s summary judgment ruling on its misappropriation of confidential information claims, arguing that the Texas Uniform Trade Secrets Act (TUTSA) does not preempt claims asserted in the alternative to trade secret claims. The Fifth Circuit found that as Trinseo’s misappropriation of confidential information claims rely on the same facts as its trade-secret-misappropriation claims, those claims are preempted by TUTSA. Therefore, the district court did not err in granting summary judgment on Trinseo’s misappropriation of confidential information claims.

Permanent injunction. KBR argued that Trinseo failed to establish the necessary elements to obtain injunctive relief. The Fifth Circuit noted that Trinseo has demonstrated it will suffer harm by the continued use of its trade secrets. Further, ample evidence at trial showed KBR intended to continue licensing its PCMax technology and Trinseo presented evidence that KBR’s continued trade secret misappropriation is harmful because it devalues Trinseo’s PC technology. Lastly, the Fifth Circuit held that it served the public interest to protect against KBR’s further misappropriation of Trinseo’s secrets. Thus, the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting the permanent injunction.

Accordingly, the district court’s judgment was affirmed.

The case is No. 24-20460.

Judge: Ramirez, I.

Attorneys: Michael A. Heidler (Vinson & Elkins, L.L.P.) for Trinseo Europe GmbH. Warren W. Harris (Bracewell, L.L.P.) for Kellogg Brown & Root, L.L.C.

Companies: Trinseo Europe GmbH; Kellogg Brown & Root, L.L.C.

Cases: TradeSecrets LouisianaNews MississippiNews TexasNews