A Texas federal judge said Monday a fiber-optics company should be required to refile its copyright infringement and antitrust claims against Parker-Hannifin Corp., but that a trade secret misappropriation claim should be left to stand as is.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Roy Payne said in a report and recommendation that he was satisfied with Davidson Instruments Inc.'s pleadings on its trade secret claim, but the more appropriate course of action to take on Parker-Hannifin's motion to dismiss is to allow Davidson to refile its copyright and antitrust claims within 30 days.

The judge didn't explain his rationale on why the claims should be refiled.

Davidson had a business partnership with Meggitt SA, which was acquired by Parker in 2022. Through that acquisition, Parker obtained intellectual property Meggitt had licensed from Davidson, giving it an advantage in developing fiber optic measurement technology Davidson had struggled to develop on its own, Davidson alleges. Parker then submitted fraudulent patent applications to "destroy and establish control over Davidson's key trade secrets," Davidson says in its suit.

Davidson claims it is entitled to at least $900 million in damages because of Parker ripping off its fiber optic pressure measurement technology that helps an engine maximize efficiency and cut emissions.

In August, Parker asked the court to throw out the suit, saying Davidson's real dispute is with Meggitt, as Meggitt — not Parker — filed and owns the patent applications at the heart of Davidson's allegations. Relatedly, Meggitt is suing Davidson for breach of contract in New York state court.

Parker said the trade secrets Davidson claims it used to submit fraudulent patent applications were publicly discussed in a patent application published in 2021 and cannot serve as a basis for a misappropriation claim.

Parker also argued that the trade theft claim was time-barred by a three-year statute of limitations.

Finally, Parker said that any part of the suit that survives the motion to dismiss should be sent to state court.

Judge Payne on Monday denied Parker's motion to transfer the case to New York state. The judge reasoned that the forum selection clause in the agreement between Davidson and Meggitt does not apply to Parker because Parker was not an affiliate of either when the contract was signed.

The forum selection clause of that agreement was "broad," the judge said, but "it is important to note that this contract was between Davidson and Meggitt; in other words Parker was not a party to the contract."

The agreement is "devoid of forward-looking language or any express contemplation" that would apply to future affiliates of the companies, the order said.

Counsel for the parties did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

The patents-in-suit are U.S. patent applications 18/423,261 and 17/107,733.

Davidson is represented by Melissa R. Smith of Gillam & Smith LLP, Danielle J. Healey, Brian G. Strand, Holly H. Barnes, John V. Picone III and Brian Medich of Spencer Fane LLP and John R. Keville, Paul W. Garrity and James Y. Hurt of Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP.

Parker-Hannifin is represented by William E. Davis III and Ty Wilson of Davis Firm PC and Robert F. Ware, Caitlin Thomas, Rebecca Pronesti, Jesse Jenike-Godshalk and Ned G. Babbitt of Thompson Hine LLP.

The case is Davidson Instruments Inc. v. Parker-Hannifin Corp., case number 2:25-cv-00520, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.