Brett Bihner v. Bihner Chen Engineering, Ltd., Bihner Chen Engineering, GP, LLC and Yubo Chen, 01-21-00086-CV

In 2005 Brad Bihner and Yubo Chen formed Bihner Chen Engineering, Ltd.; Brad executed a noncompete (paid consideration) that was assigned to the partnership and its GP.
Brad transferred his partnership interest to his son, Brett, in 2012; Brett signed a written consent agreeing to be bound by the partnership governing documents and had access to confidential materials.
Bihner Chen kept a Christmas card list (client/referral names, contacts, gift history) and a fee schedule (pricing guideline); access was limited to Yubo and Brett and company policies described such information as confidential.
In Sept. 2020 Brett invoked the buy-sell provision; Yubo elected to buy Brett’s interest for $600,000; Brett resigned and—before closing—formed a competing firm, registered a similar domain, and sent holiday cards announcing his new firm.
Bihner Chen alleged the Christmas list went missing and that Brett solicited clients; it obtained a temporary injunction for breach of the noncompete and trade-secret misappropriation; Brett appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Brett)	Defendant's Argument (Yubo/Bihner Chen)	Held
Whether the evidence supported a probable right to relief on trade-secret misappropriation and justified a temporary injunction	No evidence that the Christmas list and fee schedule were trade secrets or that Brett misappropriated them; information was memorized or publicly ascertainable	The materials were confidential, valuable, access was limited, the list went missing, and Brett likely used the information to solicit clients	Affirmed: some evidence supported trade-secret protection and likely possession/use by Brett; temporary injunction not an abuse of discretion
Whether the noncompete is unenforceable against Brett because he did not sign or receive consideration	Noncompete unenforceable as to Brett—he never signed it nor received consideration	Enforceability is a merits issue for final judgment and not ripe on interlocutory appeal	Court declined to decide enforceability on appeal; issue reserved for final judgment

Abbott v. Anti-Defamation League Austin, Sw., & Texoma Regions, 610 S.W.3d 911 (Tex. 2020) (standard of review for temporary injunctions)
Henry v. Cox, 520 S.W.3d 28 (Tex. 2017) (scope of review for temporary injunction orders)
Fox v. Tropical Warehouses, Inc., 121 S.W.3d 853 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2003) (trade-secret protection may be preserved at temporary-injunction stage)
Sw. Energy Prod. Co. v. Berry-Helfand, 491 S.W.3d 699 (Tex. 2016) (definition and misuse of trade secrets; memory rule guidance)
RSM Prod. Corp. v. Glob. Petroleum Group, Ltd., 507 S.W.3d 383 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2016) (elements of trade-secret misappropriation)
INEOS Group Ltd. v. Chevron Phillips Chem. Co., LP, 312 S.W.3d 843 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2009) (upholding temporary injunction where confidentiality measures shown)
T-N-T Motorsports, Inc. v. Hennessey Motorsports, Inc., 965 S.W.2d 18 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1998) (possession of former employer’s confidential info supports likelihood of use)
Tom James of Dall., Inc. v. Cobb, 109 S.W.3d 877 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2003) (noncompete enforceability is a merits issue reserved for final judgment)