Over the past two years, the Texas Business Court has moved from statutory innovation to an active trial forum for complex commercial disputes. Operating since September 1, 2024, it hears defined categories of high-value cases, including corporate-governance matters and significant commercial transactions, and many claims require more than $5 million in controversy. Appeals go directly to the new Fifteenth Court of Appeals, creating a centralized path for the development of Texas business law.
The court’s structure and purpose were tested immediately. Early dockets produced threshold rulings on removal, jurisdiction, venue and amount in controversy, but the first two years now include a meaningful body of tried cases. This article focuses on nine completed trials and the practical lessons they provide for litigants in how to plead, prove and try cases in this forum.
The Business Court’s First Trials
The trials span contract interpretation, equitable allocation, arbitration review, trade secrets, indemnity, ownership disputes, and services-contract claims.
Marathon Oil Company v. Mercuria Energy America, LLC, Cause No. 25-BC11A-0013 (Eleventh Division)
The court’s first trial arose from natural-gas delivery shortfalls during Winter Storm Uri. After Mercuria Energy America, LLC invoiced Marathon Oil $17 million for undelivered gas, Marathon filed suit for a declaration that it had not breached the parties’ contract. Mercuria counterclaimed for breach.
After a four-day bench trial in November 2025, Judge Melissa Andrews held that Winter Storm Uri was a force majeure event and that Marathon made reasonable efforts to mitigate and resume performance. The court accordingly ordered that Mercuria take nothing on its counterclaim. Despite Marathon prevailing on its declaratory judgment claim, Judge Andrews found it inequitable to award Marathon attorney fees.
Marathon set an early benchmark for force majeure disputes. The court focused on contractual language, factual evidence and reasonable mitigation, while separately exercising equitable discretion on fees.
Antero Resources Corp. v. Stonewall Gas Gathering LLC,Cause No. 24-BC11A-0027 (Third Division)
In one of its first merits bench trials, Judge Patrick Sweeten resolved a dispute over a 2014 gas gathering agreement with a “favored shipper” provision meant to give Antero the lowest gathering rates on the pipeline. Following a four-day bench trial, the court found the provision ambiguous and considered testimony about its commercial purpose, but still grounded its decision in a clause-by-clause reading. It rejected Antero’s position that lower-rate affiliate contracts immediately reduced Antero’s rates, holding that the reduction was triggered only when gas actually flowed and a lower fee was actually “charged pursuant to” those contracts.
Although the court granted declaratory relief clarifying how the favored shipper clause operates, it denied Antero’s claim for more than $200 million in damages because no lower rate had yet been charged. The court also awarded only $1 in nominal damages for Antero’s separate breach of the audit provision “since Antero eventually received the requested materials through discovery.”
Antero highlights the Court’s textual rigor and insistence on proven loss before awarding damages.
Mesquite Energy, Inc., etc. v. Sanchez Oil & Gas Corporation,Cause No. 24-BC11B-0018 (Eleventh Division)
In a dispute over settlement proceeds from prior trade-secret litigation, the court held that co-development defeated exclusivity. Mesquite Energy filed suit in October 2024 seeking a disproportionate share of the settlement based on its funding, litigation spending, and an asserted assignment from an affiliate. Sanchez Oil & Gas countered that it alone owned the trade secrets.
The court rejected both positions. It held that the affiliated entity lacked any independent ownership interest and could not enlarge Mesquite’s recovery by assignment. It further concluded that the trade secrets were jointly developed through coordinated contributions and that no agreement assigned exclusive ownership. As co-owners, the parties were entitled to equal shares.
After a four-day bench trial in January, the court ordered a 50/50 division of the proceeds and, applying unjust-enrichment principles, required Sanchez to reimburse Mesquite for half of the pre-March 2019 litigation expenses — the costs that created the recovery from which Sanchez benefits.
Mesquite reflects a fact-driven ownership analysis that favors substance over formal assignments and aligns equitable remedies with shared recoveries.
BNSF Railway Co. v. Level 3 Communications, LLC, Cause No. 25-BC01A-0025 (First Division)
The court’s expanded authority over arbitration disputes produced another completed bench trial, decided by Judge Andrea Bouressa. The dispute traced to a 1998 master right-of-way agreement under which Level 3 Communications could install fiber-optic facilities along BNSF Railway’s rail corridors.
When the parties could not agree on a renewal rate, Level 3 invoked arbitration, and an arbitration panel — finding that BNSF had failed to negotiate in good faith and that a contractual appraisal process would be futile — issued an award for Level 3. BNSF applied to vacate the award, arguing that the panel exceeded its authority by substituting arbitration for the agreement’s appraisal process, and Level 3 counter-applied to confirm.
The court denied vacatur and confirmed the award. Because the agreement’s arbitration clause incorporated the Commercial Rules of the American Arbitration Association, the court held that questions of arbitrability were for the arbitrators, not the court. The court emphasized the narrow scope of judicial review under both the Texas and Federal Arbitration Acts, observing that review is “extraordinarily narrow” and “focuses on the integrity of the process, not the propriety of the result,” such that “even a mistake of fact or law by the arbitrator is not a proper ground for vacating an award.”
BNSF shows that the court will respect arbitral autonomy and resist relitigating. It also highlights efficiency: final merits resolution came in about seven months.
Esteban Quintero v. Urban Infraconstruction LLC,Cause No. 25-BC01A-0022 (First Division)
The court’s first jury trial did not reach a jury verdict. Judge Bouressa granted the defendants’ motion for directed verdict after the plaintiffs’ case-in-chief, ruling that the plaintiffs had not proven any element of their claims and dismissing the jury on the second day of trial. The suit, filed nearly a decade after the events in question, alleged that Esteban Quintero and others had formed an “Urban Partnership” in 2015 and included claims for fraud, unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty and breach of contract.
The ruling reflects the same textual and evidentiary rigor seen in bench trials. The alleged promises, evidenced only by a bullet point list on a children’s menu, were too indefinite to enforce. A $10,000 deposit to an LLC did not, without more, make Quintero a member of that LLC. And the fraud and unjust-enrichment claims were time-barred, because Quintero knew of the underlying conduct nearly 10 years before filing.
Quintero confirms that the court will remove a case from the jury when proof fails and will not enforce indefinite commercial expectations.
Albert Theodore Powers; Allied Ports LLC v. Allen Lawrence Berry; Marvin Glenn Berry; and Bonnie Berry, Cause No. 24‑BC11A‑0025 (Eleventh Division)
Powers generated the court’s first jury verdict. The case concerned a 2019 investment agreement tied to a deepwater crude‑oil export terminal near Corpus Christi. Powers, a transactional lawyer and infrastructure investor, claimed a 20 percent ownership interest in the project. He alleged that the Berry family and related entities sought to exclude him once the project became viable, ultimately contesting his 20 percent interest. Thus, Powers sued for breach of the investment agreement, declaratory relief confirming his ownership interest and injunctive relief to prevent changes in control that would harm him. The Berry defendants denied that Powers satisfied conditions for ownership and asserted fiduciary and contract counterclaims.
After an eight‑day jury trial in February, the jury returned a 10–2 verdict in Powers’ favor and found: (1) defendants breached the 2019 investment agreement and (2) Powers owned a 20 percent interest in the project. The jury awarded no monetary damages. The judgment granted declaratory and injunctive relief confirming the plaintiff’s 20 percent ownership interest (allegedly worth hundreds of millions) and rejecting all counterclaims.
ES3 Minerals, LLC v. Kreines, Cause No. 24-BC03B-005 (Third Division)
This case is the early trial record’s strongest counterweight to the notion that the Business Court does not grant large awards. ES3 Minerals, a mineral-rights acquisition and resale company, alleged that former employees Nicholas Kreines and David Ryan and related entities used ES3’s trade secrets, confidential information, buyer relationships, pricing data, sales techniques, software specifications and integrated business methodology to build a competing mineral-rights business. The jury later found willful trade-secret misappropriation and related breaches and interference.
The final judgment in ES3 awarded $44,399,688 in actual damages against former employees Kreines and Ryan and affiliated entities, jointly and severally, plus prejudgment interest, attorneys’ fees, costs, conditional appellate fees and postjudgment interest. The court also awarded exemplary damages of $2 million each against Ryan, Kreines, Liberty Mineral Partners and NAK Resources, and $1 million against Jennings. The court further entered permanent injunctive relief prohibiting the use, disclosure, duplication or publication of ES3’s trade secrets and confidential information, and it imposed fraudulent-transfer relief.
Fiberwave, Inc. v. AT&T Enterprises, LLC¸ Cause No. 25-BC01A-0013 (First Division)
Fiberwave arose from a terminated sales relationship. Before trial, Judge Bouressa issued a July 24 memorandum opinion construing the agreement, holding that certain post-termination residual-compensation language was ambiguous because both AT&T’s and Fiberwave’s competing interpretations found support in the text and context, meaning extrinsic evidence would be admissible at trial. At the same time, the court narrowed the case by granting summary judgment against Fiberwave’s fraudulent-inducement claim and certain AT&T fraud claims.
The remaining contract claims were tried to a jury in August. After a weeklong trial, the jury awarded AT&T $8 million, with Fiberwave and Spearhead Networks each responsible for $4 million for failure to indemnify AT&T in connection with a Justice Department investigation into alleged illegal kickbacks. The jury also rejected Fiberwave’s claim that AT&T owed unpaid commissions reportedly valued at $50 million.
The verdict shows that ambiguity can frame, rather than derail, a jury trial, and that parties can present complex commercial narratives involving compliance investigations, indemnity obligations and commission structures to a Business Court jury in a one-week trial window.
SmartDisk v. Lexitas, Cause No. 25-BC11B-0022(Eleventh Division)
The September SmartDisk trial adds another important data point on the court’s ability to try ordinary-but-high-value commercial contract disputes. SmartDisk, a Houston deposition video and production company, sued Lexitas alleging that it violated the exclusivity clause in the parties’ agreement, while Lexitas argued that a “change in control” provision terminated the agreement and its exclusivity obligation. After one week of trial, jurors reached a verdict for SmartDisk, agreeing that Lexitas breached the parties’ agreement and awarding SmartDisk approximately $6.4 million in damages.
SmartDisk shows that the court’s trial docket is not limited to massive energy disputes or ownership-control fights. It can also resolve services-industry contract disputes where credibility and commercial expectations drive the result.
Emerging Trends and Practice Implications
Textual precision. The court reads contracts closely. Antero turned on the precise trigger of a favored-shipper clause and the defined scope of “Redelivery Point.” Marathon rested on bespoke force-majeure language and the limits of a “reasonable efforts” duty. Fiberwave turned in part on whether residual-compensation language had one reasonable meaning or more than one. Quintero refused to enforce terms too indefinite to be ascertained. The court is holding sophisticated parties to their bargains.
Proof discipline. The court’s rulings are record-driven. Mesquite resolved ownership by tracing each party’s actual contributions to a joint enterprise and declining to let funding alone dictate title. Marathon credited Marathon’s mitigation efforts in assessing the force-majeure defense. And Quintero ended when the plaintiffs’ proof failed on the evidence adduced. ES3, by contrast, shows that when a party proves trade secrets, misuse, causation, damages and ongoing risk, the court will enter substantial legal and equitable relief. The court’s early trial record does not reflect a pro-plaintiff or pro-defendant tilt. It reflects an insistence that sophisticated parties prove the elements of the claims and remedies they chose to litigate.
Remedial fit. The court has shown some restraint on damages and equitable relief. Antero declined to award more than $200 million where no loss had yet accrued, granting only declaratory relief and $1 in nominal damages on the audit claim. Powers produced a sweeping declaratory and injunctive victory but no monetary award. Marathon ordered the counterclaimant to take nothing. The court clarifies rights and awards remedies only for what has been lost and does not give recoveries beyond the proven injury.
Efficiency. Speed has been a hallmark. Powers reached trial roughly 15 months after removal, with dispositive and injunctive motions resolved along the way, and BNSF delivered a complete merits judgment in about seven months. Cases that reach trial are doing so within 12 to 18 months or less. That efficiency now rests on an increasingly settled procedural foundation.
Jury trials. The statute preserves jury-trial rights, and early cases show that this right is real. Powers reached an eight-day jury trial in Houston; Quintero reached a jury setting before ending on directed verdict; ES3 generated a large trade-secret jury verdict in Austin; Fiberwave produced the first Dallas jury verdict; and SmartDisk generated another Houston jury verdict in a commercial-services dispute.
For parties weighing whether to file in, or remove a case to, the Business Court, these trends translate into practical expectations. A litigant should come prepared to win on the text of its agreements and the strength of its record, to prove actual loss rather than assert theoretical damages and to move quickly. The forum rewards precision and preparation; it is unlikely to reward expansive damages theories or claims resting on indefinite terms.
Conclusion
Taken together, these early trials show a court that is moving quickly to fulfill its mission: resolving sophisticated business disputes with efficiency, rigor and practical judgment. In its first two years, the Texas Business Court has engaged with complex contracts, weighed equitable considerations carefully and delivered timely resolutions in high‑stakes cases. Clear themes have emerged — textual precision, fact‑driven analysis, measured remedies, efficiency and meaningful jury practice. As the court matures, and as expanded jurisdiction and business migration to Texas feed its docket, its early record indicates it will become a key forum for business litigation in Texas and beyond.
Jarod Stewart is a partner at Steptoe and chair of the firm’s commercial trials & litigation group.
Steptoe associates Brent Hanson, Lena Silva, Drew Padley and Joaquin Diaz also contributed to this article.