IP Law Daily, TRADE SECRETS—8th Cir.: Healthcare software developer fails to obtain injunction against bank's competing platform, (Jul 24, 2026)

By Ravindra Kumar Singh, B.L.

Alleged losses from market competition, speculative price erosion, and potential reputational harm did not establish the irreparable harm necessary for preliminary injunctive relief.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction sought by a healthcare revenue-management software developer against a commercial bank that allegedly reverse-engineered and misappropriated its software to develop a competing platform. The court held that the developer failed to demonstrate irreparable harm because its alleged injuries were either compensable through money damages or too speculative to warrant the extraordinary remedy of a preliminary injunction (Revenue Management Solutions, LLC v. Commerce Bank, No. 25-3159 (8th Cir. Jul. 23, 2026)).

Dispute. Plaintiff Revenue Management Solutions, LLC (RMS) develops healthcare revenue-management software, including its MB Connect Suite of Products and MEDRX platform, which processes patient records, payment information, and other healthcare data. Defendant Commerce Bank licensed a white-label version of the platform in 2014 and marketed it under the "RemitConnect" brand. Under the licensing agreement, Commerce received access to RMS's confidential software and data but agreed not to copy, reverse-engineer, disclose, or create derivative works from it. The agreement also contained an injunctive relief clause recognizing that monetary damages would be inadequate for certain breaches involving confidential information and intellectual property.

Commerce began developing its own platform, RemitConnect 2.0, in 2018. According to RMS, the new platform replicated the data-processing functions of its software while independently generating identical output files. RMS alleged that Commerce concealed the competing platform and, after noticing in January 2025 that fewer customers were using the RMS platform, concluded that Commerce had reverse-engineered its software and misappropriated trade secrets. RMS sought a preliminary injunction prohibiting Commerce from using RemitConnect 2.0 and from misusing confidential information obtained through the licensing agreement. The district court denied the motion after finding RMS failed to establish irreparable harm.

Financial harm. Affirming that decision, the Eighth Circuit held that the district court did not clearly err in concluding that RMS's alleged financial injuries could be remedied through money damages. Although RMS argued that Commerce's competing software would erode its profit margins, reduce market share, and harm its position as a market leader, those allegations amounted to ordinary economic losses that could be quantified. Citing Iowa Utilities Board v. FCC, 109 F.3d 418 (8th Cir. 1996), Beber v. NavSav Holdings, LLC, 140 F.4th 453 (8th Cir. 2025), and MPAY Inc. v. Erie Custom Computer Applications, Inc., 970 F.3d 1010 (8th Cir. 2020), the court explained that lost customers and revenues recoverable through competition or damages do not constitute irreparable harm. The pricing schedule contained in the parties' agreement further demonstrated that any losses could be calculated.

Nor did the court accept RMS's claim of price erosion. Its economic expert repeatedly stated that price reductions "may" occur and acknowledged he was unaware of any existing price erosion. Those assertions were too speculative to justify preliminary injunctive relief.

Reputation. The court likewise rejected RMS's claims of reputational injury. RMS argued that customers would confuse RemitConnect 2.0 with its own software because Commerce had previously marketed the white-label version of the RMS platform, and that any performance problems with the new system would therefore damage RMS's goodwill.

Those concerns were speculative, the court held. Commerce's customers saw only the Commerce brand while using the white-label product, and RMS identified only one instance in which a Commerce customer mistakenly contacted RMS for a password reset. Relying on United Healthcare Insurance Co. v. AdvancePCS, 316 F.3d 737 (8th Cir. 2002), MPAY, and H&R Block, Inc. v. Block, Inc., 58 F.4th 939 (8th Cir. 2023), the court concluded that the isolated example and generalized assertions of customer confusion were insufficient to establish irreparable reputational harm.

Trade secrets. RMS also argued that disclosure of its trade secrets itself constituted irreparable harm. Although acknowledging that disclosure of even a single trade secret may satisfy that requirement, the Eighth Circuit found that RMS had framed its alleged injury almost entirely as one involving lost profits rather than the disclosure or continued misuse of confidential information. Consequently, the district court did not abuse its discretion by treating the alleged harm as economic rather than irreparable.

Contract clause. Further, the Eighth Circuit rejected RMS's argument that the licensing agreement's injunctive relief clause effectively established irreparable harm. Parties may agree that certain breaches justify seeking injunctive relief, the court explained, but they cannot require a federal court to grant an injunction. Because RMS failed to establish irreparable harm independently, the contractual provision could not compel equitable relief. The court likewise rejected RMS's argument that the agreement's limitation-of-liability clause transformed compensable damages into irreparable injury and found no error in the district court's consideration of Commerce's voluntary pause in marketing RemitConnect 2.0 while evaluating the balance of equities.

Having concluded that RMS failed to satisfy the threshold requirement of irreparable harm, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction without reaching the remaining preliminary injunction factors.

The Case is No. 25-3159.

Judge: Benton, D.

Attorneys: Richard L. Brophy (Armstrong & Teasdale) for Revenue Management Solutions, LLC. Brian Apel (Banner & Witcoff Ltd.) for Commerce Bank.

Companies: Revenue Management Solutions, LLC; Commerce Bank

Cases: TradeSecrets ArkansasNews IowaNews MinnesotaNews MissouriNews NebraskaNews NorthDakotaNews SouthDakotaNews