assertion_id,filing_id,assertion
997,59,The jury's answer to Question 17 was not unanimous — the presiding juror did not sign the unanimity certificate for Question 17
998,59,The general verdict certificate shows the jury checked 'ten jurors agreed' rather than 'unanimous'
999,59,Pohl's assertion that the jury unanimously found willful and malicious misappropriation is 'erroneous and false'
1000,59,The presiding juror signed unanimity certificates for Questions 2 and 19 but conspicuously did not sign for Question 17
1001,59,The jury did not answer Question 18
1002,59,Attorneys' fees incurred in defending barratry suits and grievances are not 'actual losses' under TUTSA
1003,59,"'Actual loss' under TUTSA means loss of profits, lost customers, or lost market share based on uniform interpretation across states"
1004,59,No Texas court has ever allowed attorneys' fees in other cases to be recovered as actual damages in a trade secret claim
1005,59,At least one Texas court (Lacore Enters.) has concluded that attorney's fees incurred in a lawsuit are not actual damages under TUTSA
1006,59,Fees expended in prior litigation generally are not recoverable as damages under Texas law
1007,59,The tort of another doctrine has never been embraced by the Texas Supreme Court and was flatly rejected by the Fourteenth Court of Appeals
1008,59,The tort of another doctrine requires the plaintiff to be 'wholly innocent' and the jury found in Q3 that Pohl's wrongful conduct contributed to the injury
1009,59,Rule 17.09 provides absolute and unqualified immunity for persons filing grievances
1010,59,"$112,286 in attorneys' fees for defending grievances (Q7(1)(e) and (f)) are not recoverable as a matter of law"
1011,59,"The $250,000 market value and $200,000 development cost damages are impermissibly overlapping — development costs are 'taken into account' in market value"
1012,59,Conspiracy is preempted by TUTSA's displacement provision (§ 134A.007)
1013,59,"No Texas case has addressed TUTSA preemption of conspiracy, but federal courts in the Fifth Circuit support preemption"
1014,59,Civil conspiracy is an intentional tort subject to Chapter 33's proportionate responsibility scheme
1015,59,Chapter 33 lists claims to which it does not apply and does not list conspiracy
1016,59,The jury found Precision did not misappropriate trade secrets (Q2(a)(3) and Q2(b)(3))
1017,59,The jury assigned 0% fault to Precision in Question 4
1018,59,Pohl originally sued Precision but non-suited his claims against Precision; Precision was designated as a responsible third party
1019,59,"Precision was defined in the jury charge to include Walker, Seymour, and Ladner (before May 12, 2015) and Favre (after May 12, 2015)"
1020,59,"Kassab acquired Pohl's alleged trade secrets from Precision, so Precision's exoneration breaks the chain of indirect misappropriation"
1021,59,Indirect misappropriation is 'daisy-chain' liability requiring the first person in the chain to have committed direct misappropriation
1022,59,TUTSA § 134A.002(3)(B)(ii)(a) requires the person misusing the trade secret to know it was derived from someone who used improper means