Curadev Pharma Pvt. Ltd. and Curadev Pharma Limited (Curadev) are biotechnology companies developing small-molecule agonists of the STING protein for cancer immunotherapy. After years of research and more than $12 million in investment, Curadev says it designed agonists that bind to a previously unknown allosteric site on STING, and in 2019 it licensed certain agonists to Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a subsidiary of Takeda.¹ UT Southwestern Medical Center entered a Collaboration Research Agreement (CRA) with Takeda, and Curadev, which is not a party to the CRA, alleges UT Southwestern's professors, Dr. Xiaochen Bai and Dr. Xuewu Zhang, used and published Curadev's trade secrets, destroying their secrecy and economic value, in breach of the CRA's limits on rights in the "Company Material" and over Curadev's objection.² UT Southwestern responds that the professors published their findings in accordance with the CRA and that Curadev has repeatedly shifted its theory of what property was taken.³

Curadev sued UT Southwestern and the two professors in the 101st District Court of Dallas County, asserting an Article I, Section 17 takings claim, conversion, and misappropriation of trade secrets. On December 16, 2024, Associate Judge Rachel Craig granted the defendants' plea to the jurisdiction and dismissed with prejudice.¹ The Fifteenth Court of Appeals (Farris, J., joined by Field, J.) affirmed in a divided decision on August 21, 2025, holding that sovereign immunity bars the takings claim because UT Southwestern acted under color of its contractual rights, and that Curadev's election to pursue a vicarious-liability theory against UT Southwestern under Tort Claims Act section 101.106 required dismissal of its tort claims against the professors; Chief Justice Brister concurred in most respects but dissented on the takings claim. Curadev Pharma Pvt. Ltd. v. University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, 721 S.W.3d 90 (Tex. App.⁠—15th Dist. 2025, pet. filed).² Curadev petitioned for review on October 3, 2025, pursuing only the takings claim. The Court requested briefs on the merits on March 27, 2026; they were filed April 27 and June 17, 2026, with Curadev's reply on July 23, 2026 (Docket).

Petition for review from the Fifteenth Court of Appeals, which affirmed, over a partial dissent, the grant of a state medical school's plea to the jurisdiction on a constitutional takings claim based on alleged misappropriation of trade secrets. The Court requested and received merits briefing but has not yet granted the petition.

Curadev presents:

1. whether the State may evade its duty to pay just compensation for an intentional taking by invoking a contract with a non-owner third party, where the alleged taking is its post-acquisition use and disclosure of trade-secret property for public use and over the owner's objection
2. whether the court of appeals erred in defining the taking by focusing only on the State's initial access "under color of contract" rather than its later extracontractual use and destruction of the property¹

UT Southwestern presents whether the court correctly affirmed dismissal because the challenged conduct arose from UT Southwestern's actions in a contractual capacity under colorable contractual rights, including research and publication, rather than the exercise of eminent-domain power.²

Petitioners (Curadev Pharma Pvt. Ltd. and Curadev Pharma Limited): As Chief Justice Brister explained, when the government takes property belonging to A under a contract with A there is no taking, but it is otherwise when it takes B's property under a contract with A. The color-of-contract rule applies only when the State acts "akin to a private party" toward the property owner, not toward a stranger to the contract, so cases such as Holland, CKS, Steck, and Aukerman are distinguishable. Under Self, a takings claim fails only if the government's asserted legal right is real, and UT Southwestern's rights, at most, ran against Takeda; the court of appeals' approach revives the subjective-belief test Self repudiated. The CRA allocated rights between UT Southwestern and Takeda and did not extinguish Curadev's independent trade secrets, trade secrets are compensable property under Jim Olive Photography, and the licensing chain does not show Curadev's consent to destruction by publication. In reply Curadev argues its procedural objections to its statement of facts are meritless at the plea stage, where its pleadings are taken as true, that it has consistently identified its trade secrets as the property taken, and that the decision is already hardening into a categorical rule, citing a later Fifteenth Court decision applying it.¹

Respondent (UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dr. Xiaochen Bai, and Dr. Xuewu Zhang): The Court should deny review or affirm because Curadev's brief fails to support its factual assertions with record references, relies on facts not in the trial court record, and has never articulated a viable takings claim, shifting its theory of what property was taken. The color-of-contract-right rule bars the claim because UT Southwestern acted under the CRA, not as a sovereign exercising eminent domain; Self does not apply because UT Southwestern acted as a contracting party, and Brownlow is distinguishable.²

Curadev says the decision conflicts with this Court's precedent, presents recurring and important questions about sovereign immunity and the takings clause, and requires guidance to ensure uniform Texas law, adding that it will immunize state institutions' exploitation of licensed intellectual property statewide.¹ UT Southwestern responds that the court of appeals applied settled precedent and the petition raises no question important to the state's jurisprudence.²

• Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America (amicus brief, July 17, 2026)