Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Intellectual Property Law Blogs -> Womble Trade Secrets Blog
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
Find a Local Lawyer
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
Intellectual Property Law
: Womble Trade Secrets BlogFourth Circuit Affirms Denial of Trade Secrets Preliminary Injunction
The fact pattern is a familiar one: the defendant was a former employee of the plaintiff, TPI, a software development company for healthcare providers, especially radiologists. After working his way up from an hourly programmer, the defendant, in early 2008, accepted a VP position with TPI which required him to enter into a non-compete agreement.
Now go back in time about a year, to early 2007. At that time, a company called AMICAS, also a provider of radio software, negotiated to purchase TPI and conducted due diligence on the company. Although it ultimately determined not to acquire TPI, it did acquire certain proprietary TPI software and the defendant was assigned by TPI to work assist on the implementation of the software at AMICAS. In April 2008, he took a job with AMICAS.
Shortly thereafter, TPI sought a preliminary injunction in North Carolina state court claiming violations of the non-compete and the trade secrets statute. After removal to the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, the motion was denied and TPI appealed to the Fourth Circuit.
The Fourth Circuit reaffirmed the primacy of its seminal preliminary injunction decision, Blackwelder Furniture Co. of Statesville, Inc. v. Seilig Mfg. Co., 550 F.2d 189 (4th Cir. 1977). Under Blackwelder, the court considers three steps: first, the balancing of the likelihood of irreparable harm to the plaintiff and defendant if the injunction is denied or granted; second, whether grave or serious questions are presented; and third, the public interest.
In denying the preliminary injunction with respect to the trade secrets claim, the court found that TPI could not get over the first step because its agreement with the new employer, AMICAS, required the transfer of "substantial chunks" of the alleged trade secrets in any event. In other words, AMICAS had either learned of the trade secrets in connection with the acquisition of the software or was entitled to them in the context of the acquisition agreement.
Thus, the Fourth Circuit upheld the denial of the preliminary injunction.
Full disclosure: our firm represented the departing employee who prevailed on appeal.
Full post as published by Womble Trade Secrets Blog on November 25, 2008 (boomark / email).
Trade Secrets
Former execs are hit with doctrine of inevitable disclosure.
Trade Secrets
Razorsight agreed to pay $4.5 million settlement in infringement lawsuit.
Newspaper Publisher
Star Tribune must pay St. Paul Pioneer Press a $3.8 million trade secrets act violations settlement.
Specialty Lamp International
Recalls Counterfeit Circuit Breakers
Preliminary Settlement Reached With Soleus International
Soleus International Reaches Preliminary Settlement of Class Action
CertainTeed Reaches Preliminary $400M to $600M Settlement in Defective Shingles Class Action
CertainTeed Reaches Preliminary Settlement in Defective Shingles Class Action
Preliminary Audi Volkswagen Settlement Approved
Preliminary Audi Volkswagen Settlement Approved

Seventh Circuit: Injunction against use of plaintiff's copyrights and trade secrets too vague
Injunction Prohibiting Use of Unidentified Trade Secrets Was Too Vague
Whole Foods and Wild Oats: Unscrambling the (Organic) Eggs
7th Cir - Injunction did not adequately specify trade secrets
Preliminary Injunction Affirmed Based on Noncompete Agreement but not Trade Secrets







