Case Background
Charis Engineering, LLC entered into a Master Services Agreement with Targa Resources, LLC on October 17, 2022. This contract allowed Targa to cancel industrial projects at any time for its own convenience, provided that Targa compensated Charis for completed work and expenses. On February 28, 2023, Targa invited Charis to submit bids to build two separate Nitrogen Rejection Units for facilities located in Martin County and Midland County, Texas. Charis submitted its initial commercial proposals on March 9, 2023. BCCK Engineering, Incorporated also sent competing proposals to Targa for these exact same projects. After Charis reviewed and updated its project revisions three times, Targa officially issued two purchase orders to Charis on April 10, 2023, formally awarding the construction contracts to Charis.
Shortly after Targa gave the construction contracts to Charis, BCCK began telling Targa representatives that Charis stole trade secrets and infringed on its patents. Specifically, BCCK asserted that Charis could not build the nitrogen units without using proprietary engineering information belonging to BCCK. Charis found out about these hostile communications and sent a demand letter to BCCK on April 17, 2023, asking BCCK to stop interfering with the Targa deal. BCCK responded with a formal letter from its attorneys on April 19, 2023, repeating the theft and patent infringement claims. Fearing legal gridlock and potential project delays, Targa utilized its contract cancellation clause on April 20, 2023, terminated Charis from the projects, and subsequently handed the construction contracts directly to BCCK. Charis then filed a federal lawsuit against BCCK.
When Charis initially filed the lawsuit, the company designated itself as the Plaintiff and named BCCK Engineering, Incorporated and BCCK Holding Company as the Defendants. Charis built its original case around allegations that BCCK used deceptive scare tactics to destroy Charis's contract with Targa. However, the procedural posture of the lawsuit shifted dramatically when BCCK launched offensive counterclaims. BCCK filed formal counterclaims accusing Charis of trade secret theft. Because BCCK's theft claims became the primary issue that went to trial, the Court flipped the party designations on the final verdict and judgment sheets to reflect the active dispute. Consequently, the record listed BCCK as the Plaintiff and Charis as the Defendant for the trial phase.
Cause
Charis accused BCCK of launching a malicious, deceptive campaign to steal the lucrative Targa contracts. Charis asserted that BCCK deliberately made false statements to Targa regarding intellectual property theft to scare Targa into cancelling the deal. BCCK based its corporate allegations primarily on the fact that Charis's founder previously worked at BCCK before starting his own company. BCCK counter-claimed that Charis actively misappropriated confidential engineering designs to win the commercial bids.
Injury
Charis lost its established business relationship with Targa and the immediate revenue from the two West Texas construction projects. The company also suffered damage to its commercial reputation within the energy sector due to the accusations of theft and patent infringement disseminated by BCCK. BCCK asserted that it suffered a competitive injury and lost exclusive control over valuable engineering methodologies because Charis utilized protected corporate secrets.
Damages Sought
Charis sought to recover the profits it lost when Targa terminated the construction contracts. Charis requested the Court to triple the actual damages award because BCCK acted willfully. Charis also demanded punitive damages for tortious interference and asked the Court to make BCCK pay all legal fees. BCCK counter-claimed for compensatory damages to offset the alleged theft, alongside heavy exemplary damages to punish Charis for willful and malicious corporate espionage.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
Legal Representation
Plaintiff(s): BCCK Engineering, Incorporated and BCCK Holding Company
· Counsel for Plaintiff(s): Christopher V. Popov | Hilary Lovett Preston | Jacob M. Davidson | Jeffrey T. Han | Liane Noble | Margaret Fulcher Eller | Paige Holland Wright
Defendant(s): Charis Engineering, LLC | Charis Engineering, LLC.
· Counsel for Defendant(s): Brian Joel Smith | Thomas F. Harkins, Jr. | William Brent Shellhorse | Decker A. Cammack | Randall L. Rouse | John P. Palmer
Key Arguments or Remarks by Counsel
Claims
Charis argued that BCCK weaponized groundless allegations to steal lucrative contracts. Counsel for Charis stated that BCCK had never seen Charis's actual project plans, engineering specs, or bid documents. Because BCCK lacked access to the actual plans, it possessed no credible basis to claim that Charis's system copied any patented methods or trade secrets. Charis asserted that BCCK's letters to Targa constituted unfair competition and commercial disparagement meant solely to destroy Charis's business relationship with Targa. To resolve the underlying dispute, Charis requested a formal declaratory judgment stating that its design did not infringe on BCCK's patents and that the company had not stolen any trade secrets.
Defense
BCCK denied all wrongdoing and rejected Charis's narrative entirely. BCCK argued that its warnings to Targa were justified, privileged communications meant to protect its proprietary intellectual property. BCCK emphasized that Charis's president and founder, Bryon Cheatham, previously worked at BCCK. BCCK claimed that Cheatham took proprietary engineering information and designs regarding nitrogen rejection technologies when he left the company in May 2017. BCCK asserted that Charis used these stolen trade secrets to formulate the specific project bids that won the Targa contracts. BCCK pursued counter-claims against Charis for federal trade secret misappropriation.
Charis attempted to counter BCCK's trade secret claims by raising a time-limitation defense. Charis argued that BCCK either discovered or should have discovered the alleged misuse of information before March 12, 2022. Charis pointed out that Cheatham had left BCCK in May 2017, nearly six years before BCCK leveled any legal threats or brought its counterclaims. Therefore, Charis argued that BCCK waited too long to raise these claims under the applicable legal time limits, which barred BCCK from recovering damages.
Jury Verdict
The trial concluded in federal Court, and the jury returned its verdict on February 4, 2026. The jury completely rejected Charis's claims and found entirely in favor of BCCK on the trade secret counterclaims.
First, the jury decided that BCCK proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Charis misappropriated one or more of BCCK’s trade secrets. Second, the jury determined that Charis's conduct caused direct financial harm to BCCK and awarded BCCK $3,750,000.00 in compensatory damages to resolve the theft. Third, the jury found that Charis acted willfully and maliciously when it misappropriated BCCK’s trade secrets under the Federal Defend Trade Secrets Act. To penalize Charis for this malicious conduct, the jury assessed punitive damages and awarded BCCK an additional $4,650,000.00 in exemplary damages.
Finally, the jury addressed Charis’s time-limitation defense. The jury decided that Charis failed to show that BCCK discovered or should have discovered the misappropriation before March 12, 2022. This finding knocked out Charis’s final defense and solidified BCCK's complete victory.
Following the jury’s decision, Judge David Counts issued a final judgment on April 14, 2026. The Court ordered that BCCK Engineering, Incorporated and BCCK Holding Company recover a combined total sum of $8,400,000.00 from Charis Engineering, LLC. The judge ruled that post-judgment interest would accrue on this total amount from the entry date of the judgment at the standard federal rate prescribed by law until Charis pays the amount in full. The Court declined to award pre-judgment interest to BCCK.
Court documents are available upon request at [email protected]
