IP Law Daily, TRADE SECRETS—W.D. Tex.: Asphalt supply company’s request for injunction against former employee denied, (Feb 17, 2026)

By Brian Craig, J.D.

Customer lists and pricing information were readily ascertainable and traceable to publicly available information.

In a misappropriation of trade secrets case brought by a company that sells asphalt materials against a former sales representative, the federal district court in Del Rio, Texas has denied the application for a preliminary injunction. The court concluded that customer lists and pricing information were readily ascertainable and traceable to the employee’s personal knowledge and publicly available information. The customer lists were readily ascertainable through public sources and commercially available data. The court also found that the pricing information generated with little effort does not rise to the level of trade secrets (Blades Group LLC v. Street Smart Materials LLC, No. 2:25-cv-00046-EG-JAC (W.D. Tex. Feb. 12, 2026)).

Blades Group, LLC is a Texas business that sells pothole patching materials, including asphalt, used in road construction and repairs. The asphalt supply company filed suit in the federal district court in Texas against a former sales representative. The sales representative worked for the asphalt supply company for two years before leaving to start his own competing business, Street Smart Materials, LLC. After the sales representative resigned, the company discovered that the sales representative had forwarded customer information to his personal email address. The asphalt supply company brought claims for misappropriation of trade secrets under the Defend Trade Secrets Act, breach of contract, and business disparagement. The asphalt supply company then applied for a preliminary injunction.

Customer lists. The court first concluded that the customer lists do not qualify as trade secrets. The court recognized that a customer list may be a trade secret, but not all customer lists are trade secrets. Factors in evaluating whether a customer list is a trade secret include: (1) the steps the employer took to maintain the confidentiality of the customer list; (2) whether the departing employee acknowledges that the customer list is confidential; and (3) whether the content of the list is readily ascertainable.

The court found that the customer information was readily ascertainable. In this case, the asphalt supply company failed to identify any customer information that cannot be obtained through a public records search or through the employee’s personal knowledge. In fact, Blades Group itself purchased the customer list. Customer relationships do not qualify as trade secrets just because a company invests time and money to cultivate those relationships. The ability to obtain customer identities through commercially available lists strongly indicates that the information was publicly available and thus readily ascertainable. Therefore, the asphalt materials supply company failed to meet its burden to demonstrate a likelihood of success in establishing its customer lists as a trade secret.

Pricing information. The court also concluded that pricing information does not qualify as a trade secret. No misappropriation exists where the alleged trade secrets were traceable to the employee’s personal knowledge and publicly available information. Pricing information generated with little effort by ordinary salespeople, lacking sophistication and considerable expense, does not rise to the level of trade secrets. The sales report reviewed by the court shows little variation among customers. The customers all purchased the same product in the same quantities at nearly identical prices with only minor differences. The relative uniformity of the pricing information demonstrates the lack of substantial time or technical effort employed while generating the pricing information for individual customers. Because the asphalt materials supply company failed to meet its burden to demonstrate a likelihood of success in establishing its pricing information as a trade secret, the court denied the application for a preliminary injunction.

The Case is No. 2:25-cv-00046-EG-JAC.

Judge: Gonzalez, E.

Attorneys: Erik J. Dykema (Taylor Dykema PLLC) for Blades Group LLC. Travis Brian Vargo (The Vargo Law Firm PC) for Street Smart Materials LLC.

Companies: Blades Group LLC; Street Smart Materials LLC

Cases: TradeSecrets TexasNews