AUGUST 2025 | 45 THE OKLAHOMA BAR JOURNAL Statements or opinions expressed in the Oklahoma Bar Journal are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Oklahoma Bar Association, its officers, Board of Governors, Board of Editors or staff. customer information with them.9 The employer sought an injunction to stop the bleeding. However, the court found no threat of misappropriation because the competitor had neither completed its manufacturing facility nor taken the trade secret owner’s customers – yet.10 The employer presented evidence of the theft and argued an unauthorized disclosure was inevitable given the employees’ new roles, but the court neither recognized a theory of inevitable misappropriation nor volunteered an alternative theory.11 The employer could not obtain an injunction to prevent an initial injury.12 Why is it so difficult to obtain an injunction when the UTSA expressly authorizes them? Is §2 at odds with the common law? It shouldn’t be since the UTSA “codifies the basic principles of common law trade secret protection” rather than revolutionizing them.13 The UTSA’s call for enjoining “actual or threatened misappropriation” even echoes a line from the Restatement of Torts: “The defendant is committing or is threatening to commit a wrong.”14 Still, trade secret plaintiffs struggle to satisfy the injunction factors, especially before discovery. The last three factors – 2) irreparable harm if the injunction is denied, 3) balancing of equities and 4) public interest – are relatively easy for a credible plaintiff.15 Courts presume the second factor because misappropriation could irreparably destroy a trade secret.16 Often, factor three tilts in the plaintiff’s favor because an injunction that orders compliance with an existing obligation – e.g., to refrain from using or disclosing trade secrets – does no harm to the defendant.17 Indeed, some courts use the balance of equities and associated bond amounts to
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTk3MQ==