Texas Round-Up: July 2025 

Co-authored by: Summer Associates Harrison Kearby and Andy Xu

The Texas Round-Up for July 2025 covers decisions addressing ex parte temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions.  

LeapXpert UK Ltd., v. MirrorWeb Ltd., No. 1:25-cv-00939-DAE (W.D. Tex., July 3, 2025) (Ezra, J.) 

On July 3, 2025, Judge David Alan Ezra ordered a stay pending settlement in LeapXpert UK Ltd., v. MirrorWeb Ltd., shortly following the court’s denial of an ex parte temporary restraining order (TRO) and grant of limited expedited discovery. Specifically, the court denied the TRO because LeapXpert failed to satisfy the notice requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b)(1)(B). This dispute arose from an alleged breach of a partnership agreement and misappropriation of trade secrets. 

LeapXpert alleged that MirrorWeb breached their partnership agreement and misappropriated trade secrets. Under the agreement, MirrorWeb agreed to integrate and sell LeapXpert’s software products for managing and storing business communications. MirrorWeb also agreed to not interfere with LeapXpert’s sales, compete with LeapXpert for one year after the agreement ended, or use confidential information to create similar products.  

In June 2025, LeapXpert moved for a TRO to enjoin MirrorWeb from breaching the agreement. While courts may issue ex parte TROs without notice, Rule 65(b)(1)(B) requires the requesting party’s attorney to certify “in writing any efforts made to give notice and the reasons why it should not be required.” Judge Ezra found that LeapXpert failed to notify MirrorWeb of its intent to seek injunctive relief and failed to justify a proceeding without notice. Rather, the court found that LeapXpert’s only message to MirrorWeb regarded the breach of the agreement. Citing Marrufo v. Couch, the court exercised its discretionary power to deny the TRO. No. MO:19-CV-00064-DC, 2020 WL 4718061 (W.D. Tex. Jan. 24, 2020). 

Despite this denial, the court granted LeapXpert’s request for expedited discovery under Rule 26, finding good cause. LeapXpert alleged that MirrorWeb’s connector tool was developed with LeapXpert’s confidential information and requested a recorded demonstration of the tool and targeted depositions. Citing Legacy of Life, Inc. v. Am. Donor Servs., Inc. No. SA-06-CA-0802-XR, 2006 WL 8435983 (W.D. Tex. Oct. 10, 2006), the court found the request for expedited discovery reasonable because a preliminary injunction related to use of trade secret and confidential information was pending.  

Multipla Limited v. DOES 1-418, No. 4:25-cv-00622-MJT (E.D. Tex., July 19, 2025) (Truncale, J.) 

In Multipla Limited, Judge Michael Truncale granted the plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction (PI). Multipla Limited, a New Zealand-based company, alleged that 418 unidentified defendants infringed its copyrights by selling counterfeit versions of its fabric-cutting device, the Rag Cutter, using its proprietary media, including photographs, artwork, and videos (the “Copyright Media”). Multipla claimed that these counterfeit products were of inferior quality, sold at lower prices, and caused significant reputational and financial harm, including an estimated $400,000 in annual lost sales. 

Factual findings underpinning the court’s grant of the PI are that the Copyright Media and the defendants’ media are substantially similar and that “Multipla has meticulously documented hundreds of infringements.”  

Applying the four traditional PI factors from Nichols v. Alcatel USA, Inc., 532 F.3d 364, 372 (5th Cir. 2008), the court determined that Multipla demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm in the absence of an injunction that outweighed any harm to the defendants, and the public’s interest in granting an injunction. 

First, Multipla demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits by sufficiently showing ownership of the copyright and sufficiently alleging infringement by copying. To support this showing, Multipla submitted a copy of the registration for each of the products, and circumstantial evidence showed a striking similarity between the Copyright Media and the defendants’ storefronts. 

Next, the court found irreparable harm in the absence of an injunction because “loss of control over the Copyright Media is neither calculable nor precisely compensable.” Notably, the court held in a prior temporary restraining order that copyright infringement creates for the plaintiff “a rebuttable presumption of irreparable harm”. The court found “irreparable damage to [customer] goodwill” to constitute irreparable harm, even though the only rights at stake here are economic. 

The court then found that the balance of hardships supports protecting Multipla’s copyright: “Multipla is entitled to protect the integrity of its intellectual property and its Copyright Media.” “Given that the requested preliminary injunction only precludes Defendants from using allegedly infringing photographs, the Court finds that the risk of irreparable harm to Multipla outweighs the minimal harm, if any, placed upon the Defendants.” 

Lastly, the court found that there is a public interest in preserving property rights under federal copyright law — a public interest that “would be undermined if Defendants’ infringing conduct is allowed to persist.” The court further found that the public’s interest in preserving Multipla’s alleged rights in its photographs outweighed any interest the public has in competition.  

Accordingly, because the factors weighed in favor of an injunction, the Court held that Multipla satisfied the requirements for a PI.