Trinseo Europe GmbH v. Kellogg Brown and Root, L.L.C., et al.

Houston, Texas, commercial litigation lawyers represented the Plaintiff on a misappropriation of trade secrets theory.

No. 24-20460
2
I
A
In the 1960s, The Dow Chemical Company (Dow) started developing
a new process for manufacturing polycarbonate (PC). PC is a material known
for its high heat tolerance, optical clarity, and high-impact strength. It is used
to produce items such as eyeglass lenses, lighting fixtures, medical devices,
and bulletproof glass. Dow’s PC manufacturing process was based on an
“interfacial” process, as distinct from a “melt” process. Its PC plants
encompassed a chemical processing side called the “wet” side, and a
compounding side called the “dry” side. The wet side is the part of the plant
that makes the physical PC in a “flake” form. On the dry side, those flakes
are combined and melded with necessary additives to create the actual
product—a “pellet”—which is sold to manufacturers that then incorporate
the PC into their products.

* * *

Stephen Harper (Harper) worked as a chemical engineer for Dow for
23 years, until his retirement in 1999. He worked on Dow’s PC technology
during the 1980s and helped develop the Freeport plant. Harper started
consulting in the PC industry, and in 2007, he presented information about
Dow-type PC technology to, and ultimately created a PC plant design
package for, a Chinese company. In 2009, an American engineering firm
hired Harper as a consultant. To help with the project, Harper formed
Stephen Harper Consulting, Inc. (SHC) and hired a team of former Dow
employees known as the “Tech Team.”1 Harper and the Tech Team created
a process design package (PDP) that the American engineering firm could
use to develop an engineering design package for a Chinese client.

* * *
In 2012, SHC agreed to provide an American engineering services
broker, Prime 3 Group (Prime 3), PC technology and technical support in
licensing the technology to other clients. In March 2013, SHC entered into
another agreement with Prime 3 to provide a basic engineering design plan
for a PC plant for Luxi Chemical Group (Luxi) in China. In April 2013, Enex
International (Enex)—a Texas-based technology firm—became the provider
of engineering services and detailed designs for the Luxi project. SHC
continued to act as the technology provider.
Luxi told Harper it wanted a copy of Dow’s LG plant design to help
create a similar plant. Harper obtained a copy of Dow’s LG plant drawings—
which were marked “confidential”—from Tech Team member Chip Melton
(Melton), who had retained the drawings after his employment with Dow
ended. Harper used the drawings for the Luxi plant, which became
operational in 2016. In 2017, Harper dissolved SHC and changed the
company’s name to PCS

* * *

On February 12, 2020, Trinseo filed its original complaint against
Harper, SHC, and PCS (collectively, the “Harper Defendants”). It filed a
second amended complaint adding several claims and defendants, including
KBR, on January 11, 2022. Relevant to this appeal, Trinseo alleged that the
Harper Defendants and KBR misappropriated ten of Trinseo’s trade secrets
in violation of the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA): (1) the Process
Control Strategy and Concept and Control Algorithms (Process Control
Strategy), (2) Raw Materials Specifications/Composition, (3) the Phosgene
Reactor Design and Associated Pressure Vessel Containment (Phosgene
Reactor), (4) the Continuous Plug Flow Oligomerization Reactor Inside
Pressure Vessel Containment (Oligomerization Reactor), (5) the Thermal
Case: 24-20460 Document: 212-1 Page: 6 Date Filed: 01/21/2026
No. 24-20460
7
Stabilizer Addition System, (6) the Steam Devolatilization Process, (7) the
Polymer Solution Atomizer Nozzle, (8) the Snake Design, (9) Polycarbonate
Product Composition, Formulations, or Recipes, and (10) Negative and
Positive Knowledge. Trinseo also alleged, in the alternative,
misappropriation of confidential information under Texas law, but the
district court found the claims were preempted by the Texas Uniform Trade
Secrets Act (TUTSA) and granted summary judgment.
Appr

The jury found in favor of Plaintiff and awarded $75 million in damages.

The district court’s judgment is in all respects AFFIRMED.