CreateAI Holdings, Inc. F/K/A TuSimple Holdings, Inc. v. Bot Auto TX Inc.
15-25-00001-CV
Tex. App.Apr 23, 2025Background
- Dr. Xiaodi Hou co‑founded TuSimple (now CreateAI) and led development of an early hub‑to‑hub Level‑4 autonomous‑truck platform; TuSimple achieved hub‑to‑hub in 2018 but later suffered management strife, investigations, layoffs, and winding down of U.S. AV operations.
- Hou was terminated in October 2022; in 2023 he founded Bot Auto and built a new AV stack using recently available transformer (pretrained) models, modern GPUs, open‑source infrastructure, and higher‑resolution sensors.
- CreateAI (formerly TuSimple) sued Bot Auto under the Texas Uniform Trade Secrets Act on October 1, 2024, seeking a temporary injunction for alleged misappropriation of three broadly defined categories of trade secrets (sensor‑suite, decision‑making, safety).
- After document discovery, depositions, and a two‑day evidentiary hearing (Nov. 18–19, 2024), the trial court denied CreateAI’s application for a temporary injunction (Dec. 28, 2024). Bot Auto counterclaimed for bad‑faith trade‑secret assertions and other torts.
- At the hearing Bot Auto presented unrebutted evidence (including Hou’s testimony and technical explanations) that: (1) CreateAI’s claimed “secrets” are defined at a high, industry‑generic level and overlap with public patents and visible truck hardware; (2) Bot Auto independently developed an incompatible transformer‑based system that would have no use for CreateAI’s older CNN‑based artifacts; and (3) Bot Auto had policies and controls to prevent contamination and even made source code available for CreateAI review (which CreateAI did not examine).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CreateAI adequately identified trade secrets under TUTSA | CreateAI: alleged three categories (sensor suite, autonomous decision‑making, automatic safety) are trade secrets warranting protection | Bot Auto: definitions are vague, overbroad, industry‑generic, publicly disclosed (patents, investor materials, visible hardware) and thus not secret | Trial court denial proper — CreateAI failed to define trade secrets with reasonable particularity and secrecy required by TUTSA |
| Whether Bot Auto acquired or used CreateAI’s trade secrets by improper means | CreateAI: Bot Auto’s rapid progress implies use/misappropriation of TuSimple materials | Bot Auto: no direct evidence of improper acquisition; internal investigations produced no incriminating forensic evidence; onboarding and security policies prevent contamination | Trial court denial proper — no evidence Bot Auto acquired or is using CreateAI’s trade secrets |
| Whether CreateAI showed probable, imminent, irreparable injury to justify an injunction | CreateAI: presumption of harm applies when a competitor possesses trade secrets and is positioned to use them | Bot Auto: CreateAI pivoted away from U.S. AV operations (now pursuing anime/games), delays in filing, willingness to license, and lack of competitive overlap undermine imminence and irreparability | Trial court denial proper — CreateAI failed to show probable, imminent, irreparable harm; presumption of harm not warranted here |
| Whether a presumption of harm should apply from competitor’s success | CreateAI: cites Bell Helicopter and T‑N‑T to argue harm may be presumed when competitor possesses trade secrets | Bot Auto: presumption requires proven possession and position to use specific trade secrets; those prerequisites are absent | Held: presumption inapplicable; courts may presume harm only when defendant actually possesses identifiable trade secrets and is positioned to use them; CreateAI did not meet that standard |
Key Cases Cited
- Abbott v. Anti‑Defamation League Austin, Sw. & Texoma Regions, 610 S.W.3d 911 (Tex. 2020) (temporary injunction is extraordinary remedy; review for abuse of discretion)
- Butnaru v. Ford Motor Co., 84 S.W.3d 198 (Tex. 2002) (elements required for temporary injunction include probable right of recovery and probable, imminent, irreparable injury)
- IAC, Ltd. v. Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc., 160 S.W.3d 191 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2005) (harm may be presumed only when defendant possesses trade secrets and is in position to use them)
- T‑N‑T Motorsports v. Hennessey Motorsports, 965 S.W.2d 18 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1998) (trade secret protection unavailable for information generally known or publicly disclosed)
- CAE Integrated, L.L.C. v. Moov Techs., Inc., 44 F.4th 257 (5th Cir. 2022) (defendant’s commercial success alone is insufficient to infer use of plaintiff’s trade secrets)