The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a district court ruling that vacated a jury's $75 million damages award in a high-stakes trade secrets misappropriation case involving chemical manufacturing processes. The decision in *Trinseo Europe GmbH v. Kellogg Brown & Root, L.L.C.* (5th Cir. 2026) represents a complete reversal of fortune for the plaintiff, which had initially prevailed at trial only to see its victory overturned by post-trial motions.
The case centers on allegations that defendants Kellogg Brown & Root, L.L.C., consultant Stephen Harper (also known as Steve Harper), Steve Harper Consulting, Incorporated, and Polycarbonate Consulting Services, Incorporated misappropriated Trinseo's proprietary trade secrets related to polycarbonate manufacturing processes.
Polycarbonate is a specialized material prized for its high heat tolerance, optical clarity, and impact strength. The versatile polymer is used in manufacturing eyeglass lenses, lighting fixtures, medical devices, and bulletproof glass. The underlying technology traces back to the 1960s when The Dow Chemical Company began developing new processes for manufacturing polycarbonate, establishing the foundation for what would become valuable proprietary information in the chemical industry.
Trinseo Europe GmbH, a chemical company, brought the lawsuit against the defendants in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, alleging that the defendants had unlawfully obtained and used its confidential manufacturing processes. The case proceeded to trial, where a jury heard evidence regarding the alleged misappropriation of trade secrets.
The jury initially sided with Trinseo, finding that the defendants had indeed misappropriated the company's trade secrets and awarding damages exceeding $75 million. The substantial award reflected the significant value the jury placed on the allegedly stolen proprietary information and the harm caused to Trinseo by its unauthorized use.
However, the defendants challenged the jury's verdict through post-trial motions, specifically seeking judgment as a matter of law. This procedural mechanism allows courts to overturn jury verdicts when the evidence presented at trial, viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, is insufficient to support the verdict as a matter of law.
The district court granted the defendants' motions for judgment as a matter of law, effectively vacating the $75 million damages award. This ruling indicated that the trial court found the evidence insufficient to support the jury's finding of trade secrets misappropriation, despite the jury's initial verdict in favor of Trinseo.
The district court also addressed Trinseo's alternative claims for misappropriation of confidential information, granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants on those claims. Additionally, the court denied Trinseo's motion for a new trial and entered a permanent injunction, though the specific terms and scope of that injunctive relief were not detailed in the available court documents.
Trinseo appealed the district court's adverse rulings to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, seeking to restore the jury's $75 million award and challenge the dismissal of its alternative claims. The appeal was heard by a three-judge panel consisting of Circuit Judges Smith, Stewart, and Ramirez, with Judge Irma Carrillo Ramirez authoring the court's opinion.
In a decision filed January 21, 2026, the Fifth Circuit affirmed all aspects of the district court's ruling. The appeals court upheld the grant of judgment as a matter of law that vacated the damages award, affirmed the summary judgment on the confidential information claims, and supported the denial of Trinseo's motion for a new trial.
The Fifth Circuit's affirmance represents a complete victory for the defendants and a significant setback for Trinseo. The chemical company not only lost its $75 million jury award but also saw its alternative legal theories rejected by both the trial and appellate courts.
The case highlights the challenges plaintiffs face in trade secrets litigation, where proving misappropriation requires demonstrating both the existence of protectable trade secrets and their unauthorized acquisition or use by defendants. Even when a jury finds in favor of the plaintiff, defendants retain the ability to challenge verdicts through post-trial motions that can completely overturn favorable jury decisions.
For companies in the chemical and manufacturing industries, the decision underscores the importance of robust trade secret protection programs and the difficulties of pursuing misappropriation claims through the courts. The case also demonstrates how procedural safeguards like judgment as a matter of law can protect defendants from adverse jury verdicts that lack sufficient evidentiary support.
The permanent injunction entered by the district court and affirmed by the Fifth Circuit suggests that while Trinseo failed to obtain monetary damages, some form of prospective relief may have been deemed appropriate to prevent future misconduct, though the specific terms remain unclear from the available court filings.