IN THE UNITEDSTATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OFTEXAS DALLASDIVISION ZENIMAX MEDIA,INC.and IDSOFTWARE LLC, Plaintiffs, v. OCULUSVR,LLC, PALMER LUCKEY,and F ACEBOOK, INC. Defendants. ORDER No.3:14-CV-01849-P Now beforetheCourt isDefendant Facebook's("Facebook")Motion toDismissCounts 1,2,4,5,and6,filedSeptember19,2014.Doc.47.Plaintiffs fileda Responseon October10, 2014.Doc.67.DefendantfiledaReplyonOctober24,2014.Doc.79.Afterreviewingthe parties'briefing, theevidence,and theapplicable law,theCourt DENIESDefendant's Motion to Dismiss. I.Introduction1 Thisisa disputeabout whoownsintellectual property that wasvitalin creating a virtual-reality("VR")headset.Plaintiffs,whoareinthevideogameindustry,contend thatDefendant, anonlinesocialnetworkingservice,misappropriatedPlaintiffs'tradesecrets,infringedon their copyrighted materials,tortiouslyinterferedwitha contract,unfairlycompetedagainst Plaintiffs, and unjustly benefitted from their intellectual property. 1 Allof theinformationfoundinthissectionisdrawnfromAmendedComplaint.Doc.38.Though theCourt uses definitelanguage, theinformation isbasedonallegations only. Order 3:14-CV-01849-P Page1 of 15 Case 3:l4-cv-0l849-P Document l97 Filed 08/l0/l5Page l of l4 PagelD 6029AlthoughVRtechnologywouldbeagame-changerinthevideogameindustry, developingthatkindof technologyposedsignificant challenges,such asopticaldistortions.!d. at2.Inthe1990s,Plaintiff ZeniMax("ZeniMax"),anditsnowsubsidiaryidSoftware,("id") conducted research intoVR technology,including videogame headsets.!d.at9.ZeniMax even developed"prototypesoftware"thatwouldenableplayerstoexperiencevideogamesonaVR headset.Id.at 9. DespiteZeniMax'sgainsin theVR technology field,acommercially viableVR headset remainedanelusiveaccomplishment.!d.Thekeyobstaclewasresolvingthelatencyeffect-thedelay between a user'smovement and thecorresponding change in thedisplayed image.!d. Nonetheless,by March 2012,ZeniMax haddeveloped a prototype VR headset advanced enough toshowcase at an E3Convention. 2 !d.at11. EntersLuckey.By April2012, after yearsof tinkeringand experimentation,Luckey had developed a prototype VR headset-the Rift?!d.John Carmack, a ZeniMax employee whohad uniqueprogrammingskills,discoveredtheRiftwhilebrowsinganInternetforum.!d.He contacted Luckey and obtained the Rift prototype.!d.At the time, theRift lacked commercially viabledisplay technology,a headmount,motion sensors,andvirtualrealitysoftware.!d.at10-11. Once Carmack got his hands on the Rift,he"evaluated, analyzed,and began modifyingit usingZeniMax'sVRtechnology.!d.at12.CarmackbeganhisRiftmodificationsbyadding 2 TheE3ConventionisamajorannualtradefairforthevideogameindustryheldeachyearattheLosAngeles Convention Center. 3 Thepurposeof theRiftistodisplayimaginaryworldsingoggle-likeheadsetsthatprovidevideoandaudio, immersing theuserentirelyintheprojectedenvironment."Doc.38at2.Generally today,videogamesareplayed bypressing a keyor moving a gamecontroller toexplore thevirtualenvironment.With theRift,userscould simply turn their heads tolook around,asthey doinreallife.!d. Order 3:14-CV-01849-P Page 2 of 15 Case 3:l4-cv-0l849-P Document l97 Filed 08/l0/l5Page 2 of l4 PagelD 6030specially-designedsensorsandother hardwarenecessary totrack user movements.!d.Healso identified,applied,anddevelopedsolutionstoaddress"fieldof view,centerof projection,and chromaticaberrationissues."!d.Butmostimportantly,Carmackdevelopedsoftwarethat reducedlatencyandprevented imagedistortions.Id.Thelatencybreakthroughcombined with theothertechnologicalandhardwareadvances-a.k.a.the"HolyGrail"combination-transformedtheRiftintoapowerful,immersivevirtualrealityexperience.!d.at13.This unearthingof thegamingGrailpromptedZeniMaxtoseekaformalagreementwithLuckeyto protect its proprietary technology incorporated into the Rift.!d. OnoraroundMay24,2012,LuckeyandZeniMaxenteredintoaNon-Disclosure Agreement(hereinafterthe"NDA'').!d.TheNDA placed Luckeyunderabroaddutytokeep ZeniMax' sproprietaryinformationstrictlyconfidential.Withrespectto[ZeniMax's] ProprietaryInformation,[Luckey]undertakesandagreesthat[Luckey]shallsecureandkeep suchProprietaryInformationstrictlyconfidential[.]"!d.at14.TheNDAalsoprovidedthat ZeniMaxretainedexclusiveownershipof anyproprietaryinformationitdisclosedunderthe NDA:"All Proprietary Information... which shallcomeinto[Luckey's]custody or possession, is and at all times shall be the exclusive property of [ZeniMax]."!d.at 15. On theeveof theE3Convention,CarmackinvitedonlinepublicationTheVergetoid's offices, where hedemonstrated "a heavily modified Oculus Rift headset."!d.at16.TheVerge's review of theRift waspositive,stating that "[t]his head mounted display isreallylike noother." !d.Then fromJune 5 toJune 7,2012, Carmack used the Rift toshowcase a specially-configured versionof ZeniMax'svideogameDoom3attheE3Convention.!d.Theappointment-only Order 3: 14-CV-01849-P Page 3 of15 Case 3:l4-cv-0l849-P Document l97 Filed 08/l0/l5Page 3 of l4 PagelD 603ldemonstrationsresultedinworld-widepublicityfortheRift.Id.at17.Moreover,theRift was awarded the E3GameCritic Award for"Best Hardware/Peripheral."Id. FollowingtheE3success,LuckeyfoundedOculusLLC(thecorporatepredecessorto DefendantOculusVR,LLC)inJune2012.Afewdayslater,ZeniMaxandidsetupafile transferprotocol4 arrangementtoshareVRproprietaryinformationwithLuckey.Id.at18. Luckey'sobjectivewastodevelopandpromotetheRiftasacommercially-viableVRheadset. Id.Tothatend,ZeniMaxsentLuckeyproprietaryinformationonanongoingbasis.Id. ThroughoutJune2012,LuckeycontinuallyemailedZeniMaxseekingandreceivingaccessto ZeniMax's "proprietary information,tradesecrets,andknow-how."Id.For example,ZeniMax sentLuckeysoftwarethatpermittedhimtoinstallcustomizedfirmware"ontothesensorsthat ZeniMaxselectedfortheRift."Id.at20.Additionally,Luckeyreceived"binarycodeforthe trackingsensorsthatCarmackhadaddedtotheRift."Id.Moreover,ZeniMaxsentLuckey hardwaretouseintheRift,including"cables,""customizedsensors,"aswellasimprovements totheRift's"opticscalibration andsensormounting."Id.at18.ZeniMax asserts thatallthese disclosures were made"pursuant tothe NDA."Id. In June 2012,Luckey increased itsefforts tofundOculus.Id.at19.Tothat end,Luckey begandevelopingaKickstarter5 campaigntoraisefundsforhisenterprise.Id.Aspartof its fundraisingcampaign,LuckeyrequestedthatCarmack promotetheRiftina keynotespeechhe wasscheduledtogiveatQuakeCon6 andtoputtogetherapromotional"cameoorblurb"ona 4 Afiletransferprotocolisaprogramthatpermitsuserstotransferfilesfromonecomputertoanotherovera transmission control protocol-based network,such astheinternet. 5 Kickstarter.comisa fundraisingwebsitethat allows"project creators" topost their ideasonline.If otherslike the project,theycanpledgemoneytohelpfundit.Theprojectcreatorretainscompletecontroloverhisproject; Kickstarter merely provides the platform onwhichhecan pitch his project todonors. 6 QuakeCon isanannualDallas gaming convention that idsponsors. Order 3: 14-CV -01849-P Page4 of 15 Case 3:l4-cv-0l849-P Document l97 Filed 08/l0/l5Page 4 of l4 PagelD 6032video he planned useaspart of hisKicks tarter pitch.I d.In response, ZeniMax proposed that the partiesenteredaformalagreement.Id.at20.Luckey"ignored"thissuggestion,butcontinued toaskZeniMaxforproprietary information-which forunknown reasonsZeniMax continued to provide.Id. OnAugust1,2012,LuckeylaunchedtheOculusKickstartercampaign.Id.Luckey's Kickstarterpagefeaturedafive-minutevideodescribingtheRift.Id.Thevideofeatured multipleclipsfromvideogameDOOM3displayedonaRift-avideogameZeniMaxhad prohibited Luckey fromusing.Id.Luckey prominently displayed theDOOM3 logoand touted DOOM3asthefirstRift-readygame.Id.Luckeydescribedthe"ultra-lowlatencyhead tracking"-ZeniMax'sVRtechnology-as"themagicthatsetstheRiftapart."Id.at22. Luckeyalsopromisedthatcertainbackerswouldreceiveafreecopyof DOOM3andRift technicalsupport.The Kickstarter project ultimately generated $2.44million-far surpassing its original goal of $250,000.I d.at 21-22. QuakeCon took placefromAugust 2 toAugust 5,2012.During theconvention,Luckey andCarmack jointlydemonstratedtheRiftandparticipatedinpaneldiscussionsabouthow the Riftwasdeveloped.SeeDoc.38at22-23.Meanwhile,ZeniMaxexecutives met with Oculus's CEOtodiscussgivingZeniMaxanequitystakeinOculusascompensationfor"Oculus's dependenceon ZeniMax's proprietary[VR]technology."Id.at 24;seealsoid.at23(ZeniMax hadtoassistLuckeyatQuakeConinordertogettheRifttofunctionproperly);id.at24 (interviewwhereLuckeyadmitsthathe"can'tdosoftwareatall....").Yet,despitenot reachinga formalagreement,ZeniMax provided Oculuswith an executable version of DOOM 3 foruseinOculusRiftdemonstrations.However,ZeniMaxrequiredthatOculusobtainprior Order 3: 14-CV -0 1849-P Page 5 oflS Case 3:l4-cv-0l849-P Document l97 Filed 08/l0/l5Page 5 of l4 PagelD 6033approval before each showing and requested a schedule of anticipated Rift demonstrations.Id.at 24-25. InlateAugustandearlySeptember2012,ZeniMaxmade"multiplerequests"toOculus todiscuss"compensation forZeniMax'sroleindevelopingandpromoting theRift."Id.at26. OnSeptember21,2012,OculusforwardedZeniMaxaproposal"designed tokickoff aformal discussion" ofthe parties'futurerelationship.Id. NoagreementwasreachedandZeniMaxfinallyceasedtoprovideproprietary informationortechnologicalassistancetoOculus.Id.at32.AfterCarmack'semployment contractwithZeniMaxexpiredinJune2013,OculushiredCarmackasitsChiefTechnical Officer on August1,2013.Id.Moreover,in February 2014,toZeniMax's lossand toOculus's fortune,"fiveadditionalsenioremployeesof ZeniMax,allof whomhadworkedcloselywith Carmack,simultaneously resigned" and joined Oculus.Id.at33-34. On March 25,2014,Facebookannounceda plannedacquisition of Oculusfor$2billion incashandstock.Id.at34.At thetimeof theacquisition,Facebookknew,orhadreasonto knowthatOculus'srepresentation-thatithadtitled,owned,orwasauthorizedtousethe intellectualproperty necessarytocarryon itsbusiness-was false.Doc.38at36.On July21, 2014,Facebookcloseditsacquisitionof Oculus,despiteFacebook'sknowledgeof Plaintiffs' claimsagainstOculusandLuckey.Id.at37.Facebook'spurposein acquiringOculuswasfor the financialbenefit of its core business of online social networking and advertising.I d.at 38. Order 3:14-CV-01849-P Page6 oflS Case 3:l4-cv-0l849-P Document l97 Filed 08/l0/l5Page 6 of l4 PagelD 6034II.Legal Standard UnderFederalRuleof CivilProcedure8(a),acomplaintmustcontain"ashort,plain statementof theclaimshowingthatthepleaderisentitledtorelief."Fed.R.Civ.P.8(a)(2). Federal Rule12(b)(6) provides forthedismissalof a complaint when a defendant shows that the plaintiff hasfailedtostateaclaimforwhichrelief canbegranted."Tosurviveamotionto dismiss,acomplaint must containsufficient factualmatter,acceptedastrue,to'statea claim to relief thatisplausibleonitsface."'Ashcroft v.Iqbal,556U.S.662,678(2009)(quotingBell At!.Corp.v.Twombly,550 U.S.544,570(2007)).The factualmatter contained in the complaint mustallegeactualfacts,notlegalconclusionsmasqueradingasfacts.!d.("Althoughforthe purposesof amotiontodismisswemusttakeallof thefactualallegationsinthecomplaintas true,we'arenotboundtoacceptastruealegalconclusioncouchedasafactualallegation."' (quotingTwombly,550U.S.at555)).Additionally,thefactualallegationsof acomplaint must stateaplausibleclaimforrelief.!d.at679.Acomplaintstatesa"plausibleclaimforrelief' whenthefactualallegationscontainedthereininferactualmisconductonthepartofthe defendant,nota "mere possibility of misconduct."!d.;seealsoJacquezv.Procunier,801F .2d 789,791-92(5thCir.1986).Labels,conclusions,or mereformulaicrecitationsof theelements of a claim will not do.Iqbal,556 U.S.at 678(quoting Twombly,550 U.S.at 555). TheCourt'sfocusin a12(b)(6)determinationisnotwhether theplaintiff shouldprevail onthemeritsbutratherwhethertheplaintiff hasfailedtostateaclaim.Twombly,550U.S.at 563n.8(holding"when a complaint adequately statesa claim,it may not bedismissed based on adistrictcourt'sassessmentthattheplaintiffwillfailtofindevidentiarysupportforhis allegations or prove hisclaim to thesatisfaction of the factfinder.");Scheuer v.Rhodes,416U.S. 232,236(1974)(overruled on other grounds)(finding thestandard fora12(b)(6)motion is"not Order 3: 14-CV -0 1849-P Page 7 of 15 Case 3:l4-cv-0l849-P Document l97 Filed 08/l0/l5Page 7 of l4 PagelD 6035whether a plaintiff will ultimately prevail but whether the claimant isentitled tooffer evidence to support the claims"). III.Discussion Defendant moves todismissCounts1 (common law misappropriation of tradesecrets),2 (copyrightinfringement),4(tortiousinterferencewithcontract),5(unfaircompetition),and6 (unjust enrichment). a.Misappropriation of trade secrets and preemption, Count 1. DefendantassertsthatCount1 shouldbedismissedbecausePlaintiffsfailedtoidentify theallegedtradesecretswithspecificity.Inlightof theCourt'sOrderrequiringPlaintiffsto furtheridentifywithsufficientparticularitytheallegedtradesecretsmisappropriatedby Defendants,doc.109,Plaintiffs'compliancewiththeOrderbyfurtheridentifyingtheallegedly misappropriatedtradesecrets,doc.113-1,andtheparties'joint noticetotheCourtconfirming theidentificationof thetradesecrets,doc.116,Defendant'sargumenttodismissCount1is considered moot. DefendantalsoassertspreemptionundertheTUTSA.Doc.47at13.Defendant contendsthatCount1cannotstandbecausePlaintiffsonlyassertacommonlawclaimthat appliestoconductoccurringbeforeSeptember1,20 13-the datetheTUTSAwasenacted.I d. And Plaintiffs'allegationsagainst Defendant occurred after that date.Therefore,Plaintiffswere required toplead itsclaim under theTUTSA,but instead erroneously pled a common law claim. Id.;seeAdoptionof theUniformTradeSecretsAct,2013,83rdLeg.,ch.10(S.B.953),3 ("Thechangeinlaw madeby thisAct appliestothemisappropriation of a tradesecret madeon oraftertheeffectivedate[September1,2013]of thisAct.");seealsoInreMandel,No.13-Order 3: 14-CV -0 1849-P Page 8 ofl5 Case 3:l4-cv-0l849-P Document l97 Filed 08/l0/l5Page 8 of l4 PagelD 603640751,2014WL3973479,*6n.8(5thCir.Aug.15,2014)(notingthatTUTSAdidnotapply because allofthe allegations related toconduct prior toSeptember1,2013). Inrebuttal,PlaintiffsclaimthatDefendantjoinedacourseofcontinuing misappropriation of tradesecrets that began prior tothe TUTSA being enacted, and thusliability isgovernedbythecommonlaw.PlaintiffspointtotheTUTSA,whichstatesthat"[a] misappropriationof atradesecretmadebeforeandacontinuingmisappropriationbeginning beforetheeffectivedateof thisActaregovernedbythelawineffectimmediatelybeforethe effectivedateof thisAct,andthatlaw iscontinuedineffectforthatpurpose."2013Tex.Sess. LawServ.Ch.10(S.B.953)3.Therefore,Plaintiffsassert that Texascommon law appliesto theirclaimbasedon acontinuingmisappropriationthatbeganpriortotheTUTSA.Doc.67at 23-24. Plaintiffs'plausiblypledacommonlawmisappropriationof tradesecretsclaim.By acquiringOculus,Defendant(ratherthanengagingonanewindependentmisappropriation) joined an alleged ongoing misappropriation which had started prior to the TUTSA being enacted. And thelegislaturepresumably intended that misappropriation actsinitiated prior totheTUTSA wouldbegovernedby thecommon law.See2013Tex.Sess.LawServ.Ch.10(S.B.953)3. Thiswouldavoidinstructinga jury undertwodifferentlawsforthesamemisappropriationact. Therefore,theCourtfindsthatPlaintiffsclaimarenotpreemptedbytheTUTSA. Alternatively with thesameresult,Defendant announced that it wouldacquireOculusin March2014.Anacquisitionof thismagnitudebyasophisticatedpartylikeDefendantwould haveinvolveda considerable amount of duediligence-the kindof duediligencethat may have put Defendant onnoticeof theNDAandthetimingof Carmack'sdeparturetoOculus.Soitis Order 3:14-CV-01849-P Page9 of 15 Case 3:l4-cv-0l849-P Document l97 Filed 08/l0/l5Page 9 of l4 PagelD 6037conceivablethatanindependentmisappropriationcouldhavestartedduringthemonthsleading uptoMarch2013,andbetweenMarchandSeptember2013,whileOculusandDefendant workedtoformalizeDefendant'spurchaseof Oculus.Therefore,Plaintiffsplausiblystatea claim forrelief under thecommon law.Seedoc.38at 39.If discovery reveals that Defendant's alleged misappropriation wasindependent of Oculus's and Luckey's, and occurred after thedate the TUTSA was enacted, theCourt will instruct the jury accordingly. b.Copyright infringement, Count 2. Toestablish a claim forcopyright infringement,a plaintiff must prove that:( 1)heownsa validcopyright and(2)thedefendant copied constituent elementsof the plaintiffs work that are original.SeeGen.Universal Sys.v.Lee,379 F.3d131,141(5th Cir.2004).Vicarious copyright infringementoccurswhenthedefendant(1)hadadirectfinancialinterestintheinfringing activityand(2)had the right andability tosupervise theinfringing party'sactswhichcaused the infringement.Knowledgeof theinfringingactivityisnotrequired.SeeControversyMusicv. DownUnderPubTyler,Inc.,488F.Supp.2d572,577(E.D.Tex.2007);Jack PrestonWood: Design,Inc.v.BLBldg.Co.,No.H-03-713,2004WL5866352,at*19(S.D.Tex.June22, 2004). DefendantcontendsthatPlaintiffs'allegationsintheirComplaintareconclusory.Doc. 47at30.Plaintiffs disagree,claiming that theComplaint sufficiently alleges that Defendant isat leastvicariouslyliableforcopyrightinfringement.Doc.67at16-17.Plaintiffsallegethat Defendant knew that Luckey andOculus had been accused of copyright infringement at the time Defendant acquiredOculus.Doc.38at36-37.PlaintiffsalsoallegethatDefendant,throughits acquisition,support,direction,and financing,contributed toOculus'sinfringingconduct.Id.at Order 3:14-CV-01849-P Page10of 15 Case 3:l4-cv-0l849-P Document l97 Filed 08/l0/l5Page l0 of l4 PagelD 603837.Additionally,Plaintiffsclaim that Defendant,asthesoleowner of Oculus,had the rightand ability tosuperviseOculus's infringing acts,such ascontinuing useof software derived in whole or part from Plaintiffs'copyrighted materials.Doc.38at 42. Plaintiffshavesufficientlypledtheircopyrightinfringementclaim.Accordingto Plaintiffs,Defendant acquired Oculusforasubstantialamount of moneydespiteknowingabout thecopyrightinfringementallegations.Astheownerof Oculus,Defendantallegedlyfinanced andsupportedOculus'sconductofdevelopingsoftwarebasedonPlaintiffs'copyrighted information.Theseallegationsaresufficienttoatleastpleadaplausibleclaimof vicarious copyright infringement and give Defendant fair notice of the nature of theclaim and thegrounds upon which the claim rests.See Swierkiwicz v.Sorema N.A.,534 U.S.506,512 (2002). c.Counts 4,5,and 6. i.Tortious interference with contractual relations, Count 4. Under Texaslaw,theelementsof tortiousinterferencewithanexistingcontractare:(1) anexistingcontractsubject tointerference,(2)awillfulandintentionalactof interferencewith thecontract,(3)that proximatelycaused theplaintiffsinjury,and(4)causedactualdamagesor loss.Prudential Ins.Co.ofAm.v.Financial Review Sen'S.,Inc .. 29 S. W.3d 74,77 (Tex.2000). Defendant contends,inter alia,that Plaintiffs haveinsufficiently pled their claim.Idat 22.Plaintiffs'ComplaintallegesthatDefendant,despitebeingawareof theNDA,induced, financed,and supported of Luckey's and Oculus'breach of the NDA.Doc.38at 54.The breach intentionallyinducedbyDefendantcausedPlaintiffs'contract-protectedinformation tobeused forunauthorizedpurposesundertheNDA,allegedly.IdPlaintiffsaddtheDefendant's interference caused Plaintiffs irreparable injury,actual damages,and loss. Order 3: 14-CV -0 1849-P Page11of 15 Case 3:l4-cv-0l849-P Document l97 Filed 08/l0/l5Page ll of l4 PagelD 6039TheCourtfindsthatbasedonPlaintiff'scomplaintandforthereasonsstatedunder Subsection III. a above,Plaintiffssufficiently pled a plausible claim forrelief that putsDefendant on noticeof thegroundsupon which therelief isbased on.Accordingly,Defendant's motion is denied. ii.Common law unfair competition, Count 5. The tort of unfair competition under Texas law has been defined asfollows: [U]nfaircompetition"istheumbrellaforallstatutoryandnonstatutorycausesof actionarisingoutof businessconductwhichiscontrarytohonestpracticein industrialorcommercialmatters."Torecoveronthistort,aplaintiff mustshow anillegalactbythedefendantwhichinterferedwiththeplaintiffsabilityto conduct hisbusiness.Theillegalactmust constitute atleast an independent tort if not a violation of criminal law. Grand TimeCorp.v.WatchFactory,Inc.,No.3:08-CV-1770, 2010WL92319,at*3(N.D.Tex. Jan.6,201 0)(footnote,citationsomitted)(denying motion todismissunfaircompetition claim). ThisCourthaspreviouslyheldthat"[t]otheextentPlaintiff mayhaveallegedanindependent tort,theCourt will not foreclosePlaintiff theopportunity at thisstagein theproceedings to plead a claim of unfair competition." Settlement Capital Corp.v.BHG Structured Settlements Inc.,319 F.Supp.2d 729,734(N.D.Tex.2004). Defendant contends thatPlaintiffs'claim should bedismissedbecauseitisinsufficiently pled.Doc.47at 27.Defendant alsocontends that since Plaintiffs'tradesecret misappropriation, tortiousinterference,andunjustenrichmentclaimsfail,theirunfaircompetitionclaim necessarily suffers the same fate.Doc.79at11. Plaintiffsrebutbyarguingthattheyhavesufficientlyallegedindependenttortstoform thebasisof anunfaircompetitionclaim.Doc.67at21.Additionally,Plaintiffsallegeintheir Order 3: 14-CV -0 1849-P Page 12of IS Case 3:l4-cv-0l849-P Document l97 Filed 08/l0/l5Page l2 of l4 PagelD 6040Complaint thatDefendantinterferedwithPlaintiffs'abilitytoconductitsbusinessbydepriving Defendantofthecontrolofitsproprietaryinventionsandconfidentialknow-how,andby interferingwithDefendant'sabilitytoreturnvaluetoitsshareholdersforthetime,money,and effort invested in developing virtual reality technology.Doc.38at 46. BecausePlaintiffshassufficientlypledthetortsdiscussedabove-theindependent torts-andhaveallegedillegalconductbyDefendant-deprivingcontrolof theircopyrighted information-the Court findsthat Plaintiffs claim survives Defendant's12(b )( 6)challenge. iii.Unjust enrichment, Count 6. Defendant asserts,inter alia, that Plaintiffs'claim ispreempted by theTUTSA because it isbasedonPlaintiffs'misappropriationof tradesecretsclaim.Seedoc.79at3.Plaintiffs counterbyarguingthattheyhavesufficientlypledanunjustenrichmentclaimthatstands independentlyfromtheirmisappropriationof tradesecretsallegations.See,e.g.,AlphaPro Tech,Inc.v.VWRInt'lLLC,984F.Supp.2d425,448(E.D.Pa.2013);("However unlikely the casemaybe,if APTfailstoprovethatitscoatedSBPmethodconstitutedatradesecretbut nonetheless provesthatitwasa benefit conferredby XXPCupon VWR,which unjustly retained it,APT should be able to pursue an unjust enrichment claim."). Here,PlaintiffsassertthatasidefromtheDefendant'sallegedmisappropriationof trade secrets,Defendanthasbeenunjustlyenrichedbyreceivingthebenefitsof Plaintiffs'research, technicalguidance,andothervaluablesupport,withoutcompensatingPlaintiffsforthebenefits received.Doc.67at 31. Order 3:14-CV-01849-P Page13of IS Case 3:l4-cv-0l849-P Document l97 Filed 08/l0/l5Page l3 of l4 PagelD 604lTheCourt agreeswith Plaintiffs.Plaintiffsareentitled toplead in thealternative,and to theextentthatPlaintiffsfailtorecoverontheirtradesecretsclaim,Plaintiffscanalternatively seek damages under a theory of unjust emichment. Accordingly, Defendant's motion isdenied. IV.Conclusion For the foregoing reasons,Defendant's Motion toDismiss isDENIED. IT ISSO ORDERED. Signed thisof August,2015. Order 3:14-CV-01849-P Page14 oflS JORGE A.SOLIS UNITEDSTATES DISTRICT JUDGE Case 3:l4-cv-0l849-P Document l97 Filed 08/l0/l5Page l4 of l4 PagelD 6042