Bestway Oilfield, Inc. v. Mapes
4:24-cv-02996
S.D. Tex.Nov 14, 2024Background
- Bestway Oilfield, Inc. (Bestway) is an oilfield services company with proprietary, patent-pending frac valve technology considered a trade secret.
- Defendants Mapes (former branch manager) and Murillo (former valve technician/instructor), both had significant access to Bestway’s confidential and trade secret information, including technology and customer data.
- In June 2024, Murillo and then Mapes left Bestway to work for ServicePlus, LLC, a direct competitor led by another former Bestway employee.
- Bestway alleges that both former employees retained and transmitted confidential information, and that ServicePlus sought to use this information to compete directly.
- Bestway filed suit seeking a temporary restraining order (TRO) and preliminary injunction to prevent use or disclosure of its trade secrets and to enforce a non-compete against Mapes.
- After evidentiary hearings, the Court addressed whether a preliminary injunction was warranted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff’s Argument | Defendant’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Misappropriation of Trade Secrets & Injunctive Relief | Mapes and Murillo retained and are using Bestway's confidential and trade secret info at ServicePlus. | Defendants deny ongoing or intended use and argue there is no concrete harm; challenge basis for irreparable harm. | Preliminary injunction granted restraining use/disclosure of trade secrets. |
| Enforceability of Mapes’s Non-Compete Clause | Mapes’s non-compete is reasonable and agreed to, should prohibit him from working for a direct competitor. | Non-compete is overbroad, industry-wide, and would bar Mapes from earning livelihood in only area of expertise. | Non-compete is unenforceable; no injunction on employment. |
| Irreparable Harm | Misuse of trade secrets and disclosure to competitors will cause harm that monetary damages can't repair. | Delay in filing and no concrete injury shown; no imminent irreparable harm. | Irreparable harm presumed; risk of misuse is irreparable. |
| Bond Amount for Preliminary Injunction | $1,000 bond is sufficient and contractually agreed upon by Mapes. | Bond should be $280,000, equal to two years of Mapes’s ServicePlus salary. | $1,000 bond is sufficient given unenforceability ruling. |
Key Cases Cited
- Speaks v. Kruse, 445 F.3d 396 (5th Cir. 2006) (articulates four-factor test for preliminary injunction)
- Gen. Universal Sys., Inc. v. HAL Inc., 500 F.3d 444 (5th Cir. 2007) (discusses what constitutes "use" of a trade secret)
- Bohnsack v. Varco, L.P., 668 F.3d 262 (5th Cir. 2012) (use of trade secrets includes soliciting customers or accelerating development)
- Peat Marwick Main & Co v. Haass, 818 S.W.2d 381 (Tex. 1991) (explains unenforceability of overbroad industry-wide non-competes)
- Metallurgical Industries, Inc. v. Fourtek, 790 F.2d 1195 (5th Cir. 1986) (public interest in protecting trade secrets)