IP Law Daily, TRADE SECRETS—W.D. Wash.: Court denies TRO to data center energy broker accusing rival of misappropriation, (Feb 27, 2026)

By Ravindra Kumar Singh, B.L.

The plaintiff failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits, including enforceability of the noncompetition covenant and existence of a protectable trade secret.

A data center energy broker’s has been denied a temporary restraining order (TRO) by the federal district court in Seattle in its trade secrets lawsuit against a competitor. The court concluded that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits of its breach of contract, Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA), Washington Uniform Trade Secrets Act (WUTSA), and tortious interference claims. The court also found that the plaintiff did not establish the enforceability of the noncompetition covenant at issue, failed to show breach of the confidentiality agreement, and did not adequately identify a protectable trade secret or misappropriation (Luxor Technology Corp. v. Giga Energy, Inc., No. 2:26-cv-00357-TL (W.D. Wash. Feb. 25, 2026)).

Background. The plaintiff, Luxor Technology Corporation, operates in the energy and hardware brokerage space, supplying energy-related and hardware brokerage services to data center operators and other large energy-consuming customers. The defendant, Giga Energy, Inc., is alleged to be a competitor in overlapping markets. The co-defendant, Aaron Foster, allegedly worked for Luxor between September 2021 and November 2025 and later joined Giga in December 2025. Luxor characterized Foster as a former employee; Foster asserted that he acted as an independent contractor through his incorporated entity.

The asserted trade secrets centered on a file downloaded by Foster shortly before his departure, described as containing 170 customer-related records, including names of Luxor clients. Luxor also referred more broadly to customer contact information, purchase history, future needs and wants, pricing information, marketing strategies, and product roadmaps. However, the court observed that Luxor did not clearly connect these broader categories to the specific file allegedly downloaded. On the record presented, the only clearly identified information was a list of customer names.

Luxor filed suit on January 30, 2026, asserting four claims: breach of contract against Foster; violations of the DTSA and WUTSA against both defendants; and tortious interference against Giga. Luxor alleged that Foster downloaded confidential customer information without authorization and used it to solicit Luxor’s clients on behalf of Giga. It further alleged that Giga induced Foster to breach his contractual obligations. In the instant motion, Luxor sought a TRO prohibiting use or disclosure of trade secrets, enjoining solicitation of Luxor’s customers and employees, and compelling return of the allegedly misappropriated file.

Breach of contract. Citing Corner Computing Solutions v. Google LLC, 750 F. Supp. 3d 1208, 1214 (W.D. Wash. 2024), the court noted that, under Washington law, a breach of contract claim requires the existence of a contract, breach, and damages. The court analyzed both the confidentiality and non-solicitation provisions of the “Employee Confidential Information and Invention Assignment Agreement.”

As to confidentiality, the court found that Luxor and Foster entered into an enforceable confidentiality agreement. Washington law expressly excludes confidentiality agreements from the statutory definition of noncompetition covenants. However, the court concluded that Luxor failed to demonstrate breach. Foster declared that he downloaded the file as part of routine offboarding under managerial supervision and had not accessed, used, or disclosed it after departure. Luxor provided no evidence that he used the data for competitive purposes. On a motion for emergency relief, the court held that a “fifty-fifty” evidentiary split did not establish a likelihood of success.

Regarding the non-solicitation clause, the court agreed with the defendants that the provision functioned as a noncompetition covenant under RCW 49.62.010(4), because it prohibited acceptance or transaction of business with customers. The statute voids noncompetition covenants against independent contractors unless earnings exceed a statutory threshold. Defendants asserted that Foster did not meet the 2025 threshold. Given the dispute over Foster’s status and earnings, the court found that Luxor had not established enforceability and declined to proceed to the three-part reasonableness test under Emerick v. Cardiac Study Ctr., Inc., P.S., 189 Wn. App. 711, 357 P.3d 696 (2015).

DTSA and WUTSA claims. The court analyzed the DTSA and WUTSA claims together, noting that their elements are substantially similar, citing Traverse Therapy Servs., PLLC v. Sadler-Bridges Wellness Grp., PLLC, No. C23-1239, 2024 WL 381180 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 1, 2024). It noted that a plaintiff must establish a protectable trade secret and misappropriation, and while customer lists may qualify as trade secrets under Ed Nowogroski Ins., Inc. v. Rucker, 137 Wn. 2d 427, 971 P.2d 936 (1999), the court found that Luxor did not demonstrate that the customer names derived independent economic value from not being generally known. It also cited Pac. Aerospace & Electronics, Inc. v. Taylor, 295 F. Supp. 2d 1205 (E.D. Wash. 2003), emphasizing that readily ascertainable information does not qualify.

While Luxor had confidentiality provisions in place—an element that courts have found sufficient to show reasonable efforts—it failed to present evidence that the secrecy of customer identities itself created economic value. The court also noted that Luxor publicly identified at least one customer in its filings, undercutting its claim that customer identity was inherently confidential and valuable.

Because Luxor did not establish the existence of a protectable trade secret, the court declined to reach the misappropriation element.

Tortious interference. Turning to the tortious interference claims, the court noted that, to prevail on a tortious interference claim, a plaintiff must show improper purpose or improper means, citing Leingang v. Pierce Cnty. Med. Bureau, Inc., 131 Wn.2d 133, 930 P.2d 288 (1997). Luxor predicated improper means on alleged breaches and trade secret violations. Because the court found no likelihood of success on those underlying claims, it likewise found no likelihood of success on tortious interference.

Thus, having determined that Luxor failed to satisfy the threshold Winter factor, the court denied the TRO without reaching irreparable harm or balancing considerations.

The Case is No. 2:26-cv-00357-TL.

Judge: Lin, T.

Attorneys: Melissa Yang (Melissa Yang PLLC) for Luxor Technology Corp. Mathew L. Harrington (Stokes Lawrence PS) for Giga Energy Inc.

Companies: Luxor Technology Corp.; Giga Energy Inc.

Cases: TradeSecrets WashingtonNews GCNNews