The Oklahoma Bar Journal August 2025

The last three factors – 2) irrep arable harm if the injunction is denied, 3) balancing of equities and 4) public interest – are rela tively easy for a credible plain tiff. 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 disclos ing trade secrets – does no harm to the defendant. 17 Indeed, some courts use the balance of equities and associated bond amounts to

customer information with them. 9 The employer sought an injunction to stop the bleeding. However, the court found no threat of misappro priation because the competitor had neither completed its manufac turing 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 inev itable misappropriation nor volun teered an alternative theory. 11 The employer could not obtain an injunc tion 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 protec tion” rather than revolutionizing them. 13 The UTSA’s call for enjoin ing “actual or threatened misap propriation” 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 strug gle to satisfy the injunction factors, especially before discovery.

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.

AUGUST 2025 | 45

THE OKLAHOMA BAR JOURNAL