Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
INVESCO INSTITUTIONAL (N.A.), INC., Plaintiff-Respondent, v. DEUTSCHE INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT AMERICAS, INC., Defendant-Appellant, Randy G. Paas, et al., Defendants.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Barbara R. Kapnick, J.), entered November 2, 2009, which, after a hearing, granted plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction as to that portion of the action asserting a claim for misappropriation of trade secrets in connection with certain software tools, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
Plaintiff met its burden for the grant of a preliminary injunction by demonstrating (1) a likelihood of ultimate success on the merits; (2) the prospect of irreparable injury if the provisional relief is withheld; and (3) a balance of the equities in its favor (Doe v. Axelrod, 73 N.Y.2d 748, 750 [1988] ). Based upon the submissions and hearing testimony, particularly from plaintiff's expert witnesses, the court properly found that plaintiff had a protectable trade secret in the proprietary nature of its Q-Tech, Alpha Sources and PIT software and database structure (see Ashland Mgt. v. Janien, 82 N.Y.2d 395, 407 [1993] ).
Although irreparable injury cannot be presumed (see Faiveley Transport Malmo AB v. Wabtec Corp., 559 F3d 110, 118 [2d Cir2009] ), it may be established “where there is a danger that, unless enjoined, a misappropriator of trade secrets will disseminate those secrets to a wider audience or otherwise irreparably impair the value of those secrets” (id.). Here, the court properly determined that plaintiff demonstrated that, without a preliminary injunction barring appellant from the continued use of its trade secrets, plaintiff “would likely sustain a loss of business impossible, or very difficult, to quantify” (Willis of N.Y. v. DeFelice, 299 A.D.2d 240, 242 [2002] ).
We have considered appellant's remaining arguments, including that the balance of the equities tipped in its favor, and find them unavailing.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: June 29, 2010
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)