Pour The

Bowick & Laney Secures Trial Victory in Breach of Settlement Agreement Case Resulting in More Than $780,000 Judgment Against Defendants.

On November 21, 2025, Bowick & Laney successfully obtained a major trial victory on behalf of its client Triton Consulting, Inc. in a breach of settlement agreement lawsuit after defendants including Touchstone District Services, LLC refused to honor a $200,000 settlement payment obligation.

Following a five day jury trial, the court entered a final judgment requiring defendants to pay more than $780,000 in damages, fees, interest, and related relief — in addition to the original $200,000 settlement amount that defendants ultimately paid only after litigation escalated.

The case arose after defendants entered into a binding settlement agreement resolving prior disputes but subsequently failed and refused to make the agreed-upon payment. Plaintiff initiated legal action to enforce the agreement and recover damages caused by defendants’ breach.

After hearing the evidence, the jury found in favor of Plaintiff Triton Consulting, Inc. on their breach claims and the Court awarded substantial additional amounts resulting from defendants’ refusal to comply with their contractual prior settlement agreement obligations.

“This outcome demonstrates that settlement agreements are binding contracts that must be honored,” said Brad Laney, counsel for Triton. “Defendants’ refusal to pay a straightforward $200,000 obligation ultimately resulted in exposure exceeding $780,000 beyond the original settlement amount.”

The judgment underscores the significant financial consequences parties may face when they fail to comply with negotiated settlement agreements and force unnecessary litigation.

Bowick & Laney Win Complete Trial Victory Against AngelSword, LLC in Trade Secrets and Business Disparagement Lawsuit

On April 20, 2026, Bowick & Laney successfully secured a complete defense judgment on behalf of its client Boss Blades Forge, LLC following trial in a lawsuit brought by competitor AngelSword, LLC alleging theft of trade secrets and business disparagement.

After presentation of the evidence and argument at trial, the Court found in favor of Defendants and rejected AngelSword, LLC’s claims.

The lawsuit alleged that Defendants improperly acquired and used confidential business information and made statements allegedly harming AngelSword, LLC’s business interests. Defendants denied the allegations and maintained throughout the litigation that the claims lacked merit.

Following trial, the Court returned a final judgment in Defendants’ favor, vindicating Defendants against all asserted claims.

The case involved extensive factual disputes concerning alleged proprietary information, business communications, and competitive conduct. The defense team argued that AngelSword, LLC failed to establish the existence of protectable trade secrets, any improper acquisition or use of information, or any actionable business disparagement.

Bowick & Laney Win Summary Judgment in Personal Injury Lawsuit.

Bowick & Laney is pleased to announce a significant legal victory on behalf of its client, AB Parts Corporation, in a personal injury lawsuit involving complex claims of premises liability. On January 14, 2026, the 268th District Court of Fort Bend County, Texas granted a Motion for Summary Judgment, dismissing all claims against the defendant AB Parts Corporation with prejudice.

The litigation stemmed from an incident in which the plaintiff, an independent contractor, alleged serious bodily injuries sustained while performing work at the defendant’s facility. The plaintiff sought substantial damages, alleging that the property owner failed to maintain a safe environment and failed to warn of a dangerous condition. Bowick & Laney successfully argued that the plaintiff’s claims were governed strictly by Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code § 95.002. Under this statute, a property owner is shielded from liability for injuries to contractors, subcontractors, or their employees unless specific, rigorous criteria are met.

The court’s decision to grant summary judgment reinforces the robust protections afforded to Texas property owners under Chapter 95. By meticulously documenting the lack of operational control and the absence of “actual knowledge” as defined by Texas law, Bowick & Laney effectively neutralized the plaintiff’s theories of negligence. “This ruling is a testament to the strength of the protections provided by the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code,” said Bobby Bowick. “Section 95 was designed precisely for these scenarios—to ensure that property owners are not held liable for risks inherent in the specialized work they hire contractors to perform.”

Nabors Drilling Technologies USA, Inc. v. C&M Oilfield Rentals, LLC d/b/a C-MOR Energy Services

On March 29, 2024, B&L defeated the global law firm of Morgan Lewis when B&L secured a victory for client Nabors in a patent infringement and breach of contract lawsuit. U.S. District Judge Alfred H. Bennet granted B&L’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c) Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and held C&M’s asserted patent-in-suit, U.S. Patent No. 11,300,260, was invalid as anticipated (post-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1)) by C&M’s own parent patents.  Judge Bennet also dismissed C&M’s asserted breach of contract claims that had been asserted against B&L’s client Nabors.  This case further shows how B&L’s boutique efficiency can will the day with the firm’s two lawyers besting the oppositions large team of litigators.

See Civil Action No. 4:22-cv-02140 (ECF No. 107), United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division.

Oliver Rocha Gonzalez v. EOG Res., Inc. et al.

B&L was retained by the manufacturer of oil and gas pipeline equipment that was involved in a serious accident where a worker suffered injuries which required him to be life-flight evacuated to a nearby hospital.  Prior to any testing of the equipment, retention of expert witnesses or deposition of our client, B&L was able to promptly resolve the dispute to the satisfaction of our client.

See Cause No. 2022-48108, 125^th Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas.

Auto-Dril, Inc. v. National Oilwell Varco, L.P.

On January 8, 2024, B&L prevailed against the combined firms of Gray Reed and Nix Patterson, LLP in a fraud and fraudulent inducement lawsuit where Auto-Dril was seeking over $12 million in damages from B&L’s client NOV.  B&L obtained a FINAL JUDGMENT against all of Auto-Dril’s claims and a dismissal of the case with prejudice following extensive briefing and a hearing on Auto-Dril’s motions for reconsideration of Court’s summary judgment ruling in NOV’s favor.

See Cause No. 2023-40833, 61^st Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas.

Kevin Johnson v. Recoil Energy Sys., LLC & National Oilwell Varco, L.P.

B&L successfully defended NOV against plaintiff Johnson’s product liability claims relating to NOV’s top drive system where plaintiff sought damages of over $1,000,000.00.

B&L quickly filed and prevailed on their Tex R Civ Pro 91a.1 Motion to Dismiss Johnson’s asserted products and personal injury claims against NOV.

See Cause No. 2022-16309, 127^th Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas.

Grace Instruments Industries, LLC v. Chandler Instrument Company, LLC et al.

On behalf of its client Grace Instruments, B&L successfully defeated global law firm Morgan Lewis’ Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 motion for summary judgment challenging the validity of Grace Instruments’  asserted U.S. Patent No. 7,412,877 on a new and useful viscometer designed for testing drilling fluids at extreme pressures.

See Civil Action No. 4:20-cv-01749, In the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division (ECF No. 146-2).

National Oilwell Varco, L.P. v. Auto-Dril, Inc.

B&L successfully avoid an abatement of this lawsuit on behalf of its client NOV.  Defendant Auto-Dril moved to stay the case that had been pending pending for more than 8 years in favor of Auto-Dril’s recently filed (July 3, 2023) fraud case in Harris County, Texas lawsuit.  Following an aggressive hearing, U.S. District Court Robert W. Schroeder III denied Auto-Dril’s motion to stay and entered NOV’s proposed schedule for rapidly resolving this lawsuit.

See Civil Action No. 5:15-cv-00027-RWS, In the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Texarkana Division (ECF No. 353).

Kerry Brown & Krushial K. Productions v. Roc Nation, Sony Music Entertainment Digital LLC et al.

B&L aggressively pressed plaintiffs’ counsel to dismiss their music copyright infringement lawsuit against B&L’s client Sony Music.  Plaintiffs asserted that Sony Music distributed rapper A$AP Ferg’s song “Plain Jane,” which allegedly included plaintiffs’ copyrighted work.  Shortly after B&L’s designated sound recording expert analyzed plaintiffs’ copyrighted work and compared it to the song “Plain Jane,” plaintiffs promptly dismissed their lawsuit following a hearing on B&L’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss.

See Civil Action No. 4:23-cv-01508, In the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division (ECF Nos. 29-32).

Auto-Dril, Inc. v. National Oilwell Varco, L.P.

B&L developed the winning argument that knocked this $12 million fraud case out of court before B&L’s client NOV was even required to participate in discovery.

Plaintiff Auto-Dril filed suit against B&L client NOV on July 3, 2023, for fraud and fraudulent inducement, and sought more than $12 million in damages from NOV.  Within a few weeks of being served with this lawsuit and before any discovery had been taken, B&L promptly prepared and filed a Tex. R. Civ. P. 166(a) motion for summary judgment (September 5, 2023) arguing that Auto-Dril’s claims of fraud were fundamentally flawed and set its motion for submission at the Court’s earliest available setting.  District Judge Fredericka Phillips agreed, unconditionally dismissing Auto-Dril’s lawsuit with prejudice and entering a Final Judgment within 90 days of NOV being served with this lawsuit.

See Cause No. 2023-40833, 61^st Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas.

Dynamic Real Estate Analytics, LLC v. David Vicent Odine

B&L successfully defended Odine in more than $1,000,000.00 lawsuit alleging breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, Texas Theft Liability Act (Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 134), conversion, and Texas Uniform Trade Secrets Act (Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 134A).

B&L’s brilliant and aggressive Tex. R. Civ. P. 12 motion to show authority resulted in all of plaintiff’s claims being dismissed with prejudice.      

See Cause No. 366-05476-2022, 366^th Judicial District Court of Collin County, Texas (Order (9-18-2023)).

Extreme Techs, LLC & Hard Rock Solutions, LLC v. Stabil Drill Specialties, LLC

B&L successfully struck all asserted and unasserted patent invalidity defenses.

Defendant Stabil Drill asserted that B&L’s clients Extreme’s and Hard Rock’s asserted patents-in-suit (U.S. Patent Nos. 8,851,205; 8,813,877; and 9,657,526) were invalid for multiple statutory reasons and asserted more than 11 prior art references.  Additionally, defendant Stabil Drill designated expert Steven Radford who provided an 87 page expert report in support of Stabil Drill’s invalidity defenses.

B&L achieved extraordinary results in successfully striking all of Stabil Drill’s patent invalidity defenses under a little-known theory of assignor privity.  This case illustrates B&L’s keen ability to shred a case in pretrial and beat much larger law firms.

See Civil Action No. 4:19-cv-01977, In the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division (ECF No. 208).

Pengu Swim School, LLC et al. v. Blue Legend, LLC et al.

In this trademark infringement lawsuit, B&L prevailed on all claims in a jury trial and obtained a permanent injunction against its client’s opponent – Blue Legend. U.S. Magistrate Judge Dena Palermo’s Final Judgment further awarded B&L’s client Pengu $482,863.75 in attorneys’ fees for defendant Blue Legend’s willful trademark infringement, $187,000 in Blue Legend’s profits and $28,390.57 in taxable costs – total award: $698,254.32.

See Civil Action No. 4:21-cv-1525, In the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division (ECF Nos. 132 & 140).

Pengu Swim School, LLC et al. v. Blue Legend, LLC et al.

B&L was retained less than two weeks before jury selection and came in like gangbusters and secured a unanimous jury verdict for its client Pengu.  In a four-day jury trial, B&L proved that Pengu’s trade dress was distinctive, the competing swim school willfully infringed Pengu’s trade dress and that Blue Legend’s profits should be awarded to B&L’s client Pengu. This case illustrates B&L’s ability to be creative, focused and fierce in trial and included a spectacular case-winning cross-examination.

National Oilwell Varco, L.P. v. Auto-Dril, Inc.

B&L prevailed at the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on behalf of client NOV, following a successful 2021 jury trial.  This victory paved the way for NOV to proceed back in district court to collect from Auto-Dril the unpaid balance due under the 2011 Settlement Agreement.

The Fifth Circuit held that the District Court lacked jurisdiction over defendant Auto-Dril’s fraud and fraudulent inducement counterclaims.  The Fifth Circuit further held that the District Court had twice abused his discretion, and reinstated NOV’s breach of contract claims against Auto-Dril for failure to pay the full settlement amount.

See National Oilwell Varco, L.P. vs. Auto-Dril, Inc., 68 F.4^th 206 (5^th Cir. 2023).

Grace Instruments Industries LLC v. Chandler Instruments Company, LLC et al.

In early 2023, B&L prevailed at the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on behalf of client Grace Instruments.  reversed the District Court’s final judgment in a patent infringement case.

The District Court had previously found the term “enlarged chamber” of Grace’s asserted patent-in-suit, U.S. Patent No. 7,412,877, invalid as indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶2.  The Federal Circuit panel disagreed, reversing the District Court’s invalidity decision, and reinstated the validity of Grace Instruments’ patent-in-suit.  

See Grace Instr. Indus., LLC vs. Chandler Instr. Co, LLC et al., 57 F.4^th 1001 (Fed.Cir. 2023).