Energylink Corporation v. Braden Group BV

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
BRADEN GROUP B.V. and BRADEN
AMERICAS INC.,
Plaintiffs,
vs .
ENERGYLINK CORPORATION d/b/a
ENERGYLINK INTERNATIONAL,
Def endant.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
ORDER
CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:23-cv-626
Plaintiffs Braden Group B.V. and Braden Americas, Inc. ("Plaintiffs" or "Braden") have
filed a Rule 54(b) Motion for Reconsideration concerning the Court's Sealed Order (Doc. 190)
that dealt with the parties' competing Motions for Summary Judgment. (Doc. Nos. 196, 197).
EnergyLink Corporation d/b/a EnergyLink International ("EnergyLink") has filed a response in
opposition. (Doc. No. 199). The Court held a remote hearing on the motion and has not only
considered the briefing but also has considered the argument of counsel. It hereby grants the
motion in part and denies it in part.
I.
In the motion, Braden has asked the Court to reconsider its ruling on the issue of ownership
of the 15 engineering drawings at issue. The Court finds no reason to change its ruling on this
issue. The Plaintiffs attempt to cast the Court's review of the alleged ownership evidence as a
"weighing" of the evidence. (Doc. No. 196 at 16). It is more accurate to say that the Court analyzed
the evidence that the parties put before it. The Court found there was no evidence that Braden
actually acquired the 15 drawings in question. There was evidence that Plaintiffs acquired all the
Innova Global Operating Ltd.-owned material on the Innova Canadian server, but no evidence that
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
May 14, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:23-cv-00626 Document 202 Filed 05/14/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 5

any of the 15 drawings were on the acquired server. Plaintiffs gave the Court no proof that the
drawings they claim they acquired were actually on the server.
Moreover, 	the 	actual 	agreement they 	signed 	(the 	Books 	and 	Records Agreement)
specifically limited the data Plaintiffs purchased to that owned by Innova Global Operating Ltd.
and specifically excluded any assets owned by any other party, including those entities related to
Innova. The drawings indicate they were owned by Innova Global Ltd.-not Innova Global
Operating Ltd. Braden had no contrary proof.
Thus, Braden has two holes in the evidence presented to the Court, both of which are
ultimately fatal to its claim. First, it had no evidence that the 15 drawings at issue were actually
contained on the Innova Canadian server. Second, it had no evidence that the drawings were owned
by Innova Global Operating Ltd.-the only company whose data it allegedly bought. So even if it
had evidence the drawings were on the server, then Plaintiffs presented no proof they were owned
by Innova Global Operating Ltd.-the company whose assets it bought. Thus, the Court did not
weigh competing evidence of ownership; it had no actual evidence from Plaintiffs of ownership. 1
The Plaintiffs' motion is denied on this point.
II.
Braden has also asked this Court to reconsider at least a portion of its prior order pertaining
to EnergyLink's false advertising, unfair competition, tortious interference with prospective
business relationships, and defamation claims. This Court grants, at least in part, Plaintiffs' motion.
In its prior order, the Court's ruling with regard to the ownership of the 15 drawings in question
was limited to the drawings that were the subject of Plaintiffs' copyright claims against
1 This Court obviously noted and discussed the fact that the drawings, themselves, are labeled as being owned by
lnnova Global Ltd.- not lnnova Global Operating Ltd. While probative, the Court would have reached the same
decision without this fact given the lack of proof by Plaintiffs that would raise an issue of material fact.
2
Case 4:23-cv-00626 Document 202 Filed 05/14/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 5

EnergyLink. As noted above, that ruling remains unchanged. The above-referenced claims all
center around the statements made by Jeff Trost ("Trost") to General Electric that Energy Link was
improperly using Braden's data and drawings and that they were going to file suit. (Doc. No. 155-
3atll).
Obviously, this statement has two separate representations: 	1) that EnergyLink was
improperly using Braden's data and drawings; and 2) that Braden was going to file suit. The second
representation was obviously an accurate prediction as Braden did indeed file a lawsuit against
Energy Link.
The first representation with respect to EnergyLink's alleged use of Braden's data and
drawings is not specific as to which data and documents were being improperly used. This Court's
ruling as to Braden's inability to raise a fact issue as to the 15 drawings that are the subject of its
copyright complaint in this Court does not necessarily, however, make Trost's statement false. In
theory, Energy Link could be improperly using other data and drawings that Braden obtained from
PricewaterhouseCoopers, Inc. ("PWC"). That being the case, the Court's conclusion that its
finding as to the ownership of the 15 drawings that are the subject of Braden's Complaint against
EnergyLink rendered Trost's statement false (see Doc. No. 190 at 50) was an overstatement and
the Court hereby strikes that conclusion. While this statement may ultimately be proven to be
accurate, the Court finds that it is not the only conclusion that can be drawn at this point in time
on the record before the Court. Therefore, it finds that a fact question exists as to whether Trost's
statement was false. 2
2 Braden also claims that the Court's ruling finding a fact issue on EnergyLink's defamation claim was based on
Energy Link 's incorrect assertion that the second email Liam Murphy of PwC sent to Trost was not in the record, so
the Court should reconsider its ruling. The Court has already considered that email. Moreover, the Court finds Braden 's
characterization of that email to be far too expansive. The email states " [e ]ssentially they buy the books, records and
associated IP on the Canadian Server, and continue to have access to the books/records etc in Tulsa." (Doc. No. 161
at 2). This email does not equate to a statement that Energy Link was allegedly using the IP Braden bought from PwC
or that Braden bought any of the 15 drawings at issue.
3
Case 4:23-cv-00626 Document 202 Filed 05/14/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 5

This does not ultimately change the Court's overall conclusion that Braden was not entitled
to summary judgment on EnergyLink's defamation claim based upon Trost's statement, or on
EnergyLink's remaining Counts 4, 5, and 6, but it may affect the parties' positions as the case
progresses.
III.
Plaintiffs' final request is more procedural in nature. They request that this Court sever the
ownership issue that is central to Braden's claims. This would make that issue appealable. If the
Circuit Court were ultimately to disagree with this Court's conclusion on the ownership issue, that
would not only necessitate a trial on those issues, but also would impact EnergyLink's remaining
claims against Braden. For example, if Braden actually owns the 15 drawings in question, it could
change the result on the defamation claim discussed above. EnergyLink opposes this request
arguing that it is premature and that it is well into trial preparation for an upcoming trial next
month.
The Court finds the most expeditious course of action is to sever the ownership issue and
make it appealable. It is the primary issue in both the Plaintiffs' claims against EnergyLink, and it
will be a key factor in EnergyLink's claims against the Plaintiffs. It is also a factor in the unfair
competition claim. Consequently, a definite answer on this issue would be beneficial.
4
Case 4:23-cv-00626 Document 202 Filed 05/14/26 in TXSD Page 4 of 5

While it appreciates the preparation and scheduling efforts that both sides have undertaken,
the Court finds that the Plaintiffs' requested procedure is the best course of action to take. It is the
most efficient and expeditious route to a final resolution. Therefore, the Court grants Plaintiffs'
motion on that issue and will enter a corresponding order to effectuate this process.
It is so ordered.
-r-Signed on this the J..:}_ day of May, 2026.
Andrew S. Hanen
United States District Judge
5
Case 4:23-cv-00626 Document 202 Filed 05/14/26 in TXSD Page 5 of 5