Texas Business Court Signals Broad IP Jurisdiction, Opening Door to Patent‑Adjacent Disputes

The Texas Business Court quickly is becoming a go-to venue for trade secrets disputes in the state. A new decision provides insight into what appears to be the court’s expansive approach to considering trade secrets claims—an approach that ultimately may extend to patent-adjacent litigation.

In a February ruling, Business Court Judge Stacy Rogers Sharp allowed the movement of a trade secret–related case between Alamo Title Co. and WFG National Title Co. from state district court into the business court, signaling a broad interpretation of the court’s intellectual property (IP) jurisdiction

Judge Sharp held that jurisdiction does not depend on a narrowly pleaded, standalone trade secret misappropriation claim. Instead, courts will look at the substance of the allegations. Even without an explicit trade secret count, claims involving misuse of confidential information, customer lists, or employee data may fall within the business court’s authority. The opinion emphasized that cases “relating to” intellectual property qualify, even if the IP issues are only tangential to other claims.

So far, the business court’s IP interests have been confined to the Texas Uniform Trade Secrets Act. But arguably that the same legal principles may apply to certain types of patent-related disputes. Although the business court cannot hear patent infringement or invalidity claims—which remain exclusively federal matters—this recent ruling suggests the Texas Business Court will be receptive to patent related disputes rooted in contracts and ownership. Likely cases include disagreements over patent assignments during corporate transactions, inventor employer ownership disputes, and breaches of patent or other IP licensing agreements involving royalties or scope of use.

Created by the Texas Legislature in 2023 and expanded in 2025 to include IP disputes and a lowered $5 million damages threshold, the business court is modeled in part on Delaware’s Chancery Court. Lawyers are drawn to it because judges are appointed rather than elected, are required to issue written opinions, and move cases quickly—often setting trial dates within six to eight months. Such cases previously were heard in Texas state district court, where they competed for space on the docket with non-business cases such as child custody matters, foreclosures, and personal injury claims.

Overall, although the decision is not necessarily binding, the decision signals that the Texas Business Court may become a significant forum for complex, business focused IP and patent adjacent disputes.

Accordingly, should businesses desire to use the Texas Business Court as a forum for its IP related and other business disputes within the state, the venue clause in an agreement can be adjusted and drafted to designate the Texas Business Court in one of the cities (e.g., Houston, Dallas, Austin) where these courts are located as the parties choice should a future business dispute arise.  By the parties consenting to this forum for such disputes over the $5 million damages threshold before a dispute arises, the parties likely will save time and money, and be more assured of experienced business litigation judges. Should a dispute arise where venue for the Texas Business Court has not been specified, and the potential damages in dispute can be shown to meet the minimum threshold, one or both parties should consider the Texas Business Court for resolution in view of these potential efficiencies.

If you have any questions about the issues raised in this alert, please contact Jeffrey Whittle or the Womble Bond Dickinson attorney with whom you normally work.