Alamo Title Company v. WFG National Title Company of Texas, LLC: Texas Business Court Takes Broad View of Jurisdiction in Ruling on Motion to Remand

The Texas Business Court recently released an opinion in Alamo Title Company v. WFG National Title Company of Texas, LLC,[1] that provides important guidance on how it interprets its subject matter jurisdiction, particularly with respect to matters involving intellectual property. The Court held that the statute granting jurisdiction should be interpreted according to its plain language, requiring only that the controversy be “related to” intellectual property, a phrase Texas courts have consistently construed broadly. The Court also provided guidance on how the amount in controversy requirement should be interpreted.

Background

The Texas Business Court (Business Court) is a specialized statewide trial court created by the Texas Legislature to handle complex, high‑value business disputes. The court was established by statute in Chapter 25A of the Texas Government Code, enacted through House Bill 19 and effective September 1, 2024. The Legislature’s objective was to provide a dedicated forum staffed by judges with significant commercial‑law experience to adjudicate sophisticated business cases more efficiently and consistently than general‑jurisdiction trial courts.

Following the opening of the Business Court, the Texas Legislature enacted another round of amendments and improvements to the statutes governing the Business Court, which included an expansion of the Business Court’s jurisdiction. House Bill 40, effective September 1, 2025, lowered the amount in controversy threshold to $5 million and expanded the enumerated list of subject-matter categories within the Business Court’s jurisdiction to include actions “arising out of or relating to the ownership, use, licensing, lease, installation, or performance of intellectual property.” Section 25A.004(d)(4). See Foley Corporate Governance Update, Texas Legislature Strengthens Business Court with Expanded Jurisdiction and Operational Reforms, June 30, 2025. The “arising out of or relating to” language was a key consideration of the Business Court in this matter.

In Alamo Title Company v. WFG National Title Company of Texas LLC, the plaintiff, Alamo, accused defendant title company, WFG National Title Company, of wrongfully using Alamo’s confidential business information to poach employees and customers. Notably, Alamo did not plead a standalone trade secret claim. The action was originally filed in district court, but WFG removed the case to the Business Court.

Alamo moved to remand the case back to the district court, asserting that the Business Court lacked jurisdiction because the action did not meet any of the substantive topics as required under Chapter 25A.004 and could not satisfy the amount-in-controversy requirement. Opinion at ¶¶ 9–14.

Future damages are included in the amount-in-controversy calculation

In its motion to remand, Alamo contended that the amount in controversy does not exceed $5 million. WFG, however, cited Alamo’s discovery responses that disclosed $4.7 million in damages for the year 2025, which Alamo alleges “are ongoing and increasing during the pendency of litigation,” in addition to harm to its business, reputation, and goodwill with its customers. Id. ¶¶ 9–11. In response, Alamo argued that the Court cannot consider future damages when calculating the amount in controversy. The Court disagreed, holding that future damages are included in determining the amount in controversy. Id. ¶ 12. Thus, Alamo’s discovery responses were a concession that the minimum amount in controversy is $4.7 million, and Alamo offered no evidence to rebut WFG’s assertion that the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million when the court considers the future damages and other incalculable-harm damages.

The Court broadly interprets “relating to” provision of Section 25A.004(d)

Regarding the intellectual property topic, Alamo argued that the action did not “arise out of” an intellectual property dispute, taking the position that the Court should require a stronger connection between the lawsuit and intellectual property to find jurisdiction. Id. ¶¶ 23, 24. The Court rejected this narrow reading of Subsection (4)’s scope. Subsection (4) also includes any action “relating to” intellectual property. The disjunctive phrase “relating to” has been broadly construed by Texas courts and requires no causal link. Id.¶ 23. Wishing to avoid a finding of jurisdiction, Alamo argued that its pleadings were directed to unfair soliciting of customers and carrying away customer lists. Id.¶ 22. The Court, however, found that even an “indirect connection” to intellectual property could be sufficient for jurisdiction to be established because the Court must adhere to the plain language of Chapter 25A. Id. ¶ 25. Alamo’s original petition was for breach of fiduciary duties, but as it also referenced intellectual property, the court found such reference to be sufficient to meet the second prong of the jurisdiction requirement. 

Takeaways

The Alamo decision shows that the Business Court is willing to find subject matter jurisdiction is established even when intellectual property issues are only indirectly part of an action. Importantly, the Business Court’s decision underscores that plaintiffs cannot avoid Business Court jurisdiction through careful pleading alone. Where a dispute is factually grounded in the alleged misuse of intellectual property or confidential information, the Business Court may find jurisdiction even if the claims are framed as tort or fiduciary‑duty causes of action.

[1] Alamo Title Company v. WFG National Title Company of Texas, LLC, 2026 Tex. Bus. 6 (4th Div. Feb. 3, 2026)