ARTICLE
20 February 2024

Ninth Circuit's Decision Sheds Light On Important Considerations In Granting Injunctive Relief

CM
Crowell & Moring LLP
Contributor
Our founders aspired to create a different kind of law firm when they launched Crowell & Moring in 1979. From those bold beginnings, our mission has been to provide our clients with the best services of any law firm in the world through a spirit of trust, respect, cooperation, collaboration, and a commitment to giving back to the communities around us.
The Ninth Circuit's decision in Perrin Bernard Supowitz, LLC v. Morales continues to highlight the high bar necessary for a motion for preliminary injunction, the evidence required ...
United States Intellectual Property
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.

The Ninth Circuit's decision in Perrin Bernard Supowitz, LLC v. Morales continues to highlight the high bar necessary for a motion for preliminary injunction, the evidence required to establish irreparable harm, and the limited "abuse of discretion" standard that may be applied during any appeal. Case No. 23-55189, 2023 WL 1415572 (9th Cir. Feb. 5, 2024).

In Perrin, the Ninth Circuit found no abuse of discretion in the Central District of California's decision to deny a preliminary injunction that Individual FoodService ("IFS"), a supplier of food service products, sought against two former employees who formed a competing business while still employed at IFS, for misappropriation of a trade secret – IFS's customer list.

Although the Court noted that "there was no dispute that IFS's customer order history qualified as a trade secret," the Court found that any trade secrets the former employees may have misappropriated from IFS were "old and stale," and therefore IFS was at no risk of suffering irreparable harm by being "wronged again" by their continued use. The Court explained that this finding of staleness sufficed to deny the preliminary injunction because such a remedy should only last as long as it is necessary to preserve the rights of the parties and eliminate the commercial advantage gained through misappropriation.

The Court further reasoned that barring the two former employees from doing business with any customer they serviced while still employed at IFS was a punitive measure, "whereas the purpose of a preliminary injunction is to preserve the status quo." The Court explained that by refusing to enjoin activity that potentially extended beyond the two former employees' trade secret misappropriations, the lower court properly balanced the competing public interests of protecting trade secrets and allowing open competition and employee mobility.

This case highlights the need to critically assess the bases for a request for preliminary relief when claims of misappropriation of trade secrets are being asserted. One should be particularly careful about the scope and strength of the trade secrets at issue and be able to articulate the various harms that may be encountered if those secrets are allowed to be misused on an ongoing basis.

Originally published on February 20, 2024

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

ARTICLE
20 February 2024

Ninth Circuit's Decision Sheds Light On Important Considerations In Granting Injunctive Relief

United States Intellectual Property
Contributor
Our founders aspired to create a different kind of law firm when they launched Crowell & Moring in 1979. From those bold beginnings, our mission has been to provide our clients with the best services of any law firm in the world through a spirit of trust, respect, cooperation, collaboration, and a commitment to giving back to the communities around us.
See More Popular Content From

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More