IP Law Daily, TRADE SECRETS—D. Del.: Preliminary injunction denied in supply chain software dispute, (Dec 12, 2025)

By Carolin Dennis, B.Sc., LL.B., LL.M.

Supply chain software owners could not show a likelihood of success on the claims, or irreparable harm in the absence of a preliminary injunction.

The owners of copyrighted software and trade secrets in supply chain software were not entitled to a preliminary injunction preventing a competitor from selling software allegedly containing copied code and trade secrets due to a lack of irreparable harm, the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware has held. The district court determined that the plaintiffs were not likely to succeed on the merits of any of their copyright or trade secret claims and did not made a strong case for irreparable harm in the absence of a preliminary injunction (Coupa Software Inc. v. Optilogic Inc., No. 24-1275-RGA (D. Del. Dec. 18, 2025)).

Background. Coupa Software Inc. (Coupa) produces Supply Chain Design and Planning (SCDP) software. Donald Hicks founded Llamasoft LLC, a company focused on developing supply chain software. Coupa purchased Llamasoft in 2018. In 2018, Hicks began another company Optilogic Inc. which developed “Atlas,” a supply chain model. Coupa and Llamasoft (together, plaintiffs) argued that several versions of Coupa’s supply chain software are copyrighted. The plaintiffs also asserted that Coupa maintained the secrecy of two customizations to the algorithms that underlie SCDP: (1) the dynamic calculation of a value known as “Big M,” and (2) the ability of customers to apply percentage-based “last mile constraints” to their supply chain models using the underlying methodology. The plaintiffs contended that Coupa’s particular implementation of these concepts qualify as trade secrets.

The plaintiffs contended that Optilogic’s Cosmic Frog supply chain design solution violated its trade secrets and improperly used its copyrighted software. Therefore, the plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction to enjoin Optilogic and Hicks (collectively, defendants) from using Coupa’s copyrighted software and trade secrets.

Likelihood of success. The district court found that the plaintiffs were not likely to succeed on the merits of any of their copyright or trade secret claims and did not made a strong case for irreparable harm in the absence of a preliminary injunction. To succeed on a claim of copyright infringement, a plaintiff must prove ownership of a valid copyright, and copying of constituent elements of the work that are original. The plaintiffs argued that the data schema and user interface (UI) of the defendants’ software infringes three of the plaintiffs’ copyrights for SCDP software. The district court noted that the plaintiffs’ data schema argument did not have much likelihood of success because the plaintiffs only identified 590 rows of similar schema out of more than 7,200 rows of the plaintiffs’ schema and more than 5,450 rows of the defendants’ schema. Similarly, the plaintiffs failed to show a likelihood of success on their UI copyright claim because Optilogic’s UI was created by an individual who never worked for the plaintiffs and was unfamiliar with the plaintiffs’ UI.

To prevail on a claim for misappropriation of trade secrets under the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA), a plaintiff must (1) identify the material protected as a trade secret under 18 U.S.C. § 1836 and § 1839, and (2) demonstrate the defendant misappropriated the trade secrets. The plaintiffs argued that two algorithmic customizations, the Big M method and the last-mile constraints, qualified as trade secrets and were misappropriated by the defendants. However, the district court found that the plaintiffs did not have much likelihood of success proving that Big M qualified as a trade secret because Big M was based on well-known supply optimization concepts, and most of the factors used to create the equations in the Big M method appear in a general sense on the plaintiffs’ website, and there is a relatively small universe of whole numbers that can be used to complete the non-public aspect of the Big M equations.

The district court noted that the plaintiffs admitted that the last mile constraint is a publicly-known feature that is discussed on their website. However, the plaintiffs argued that the implementation of the feature is a secret. The district court found that even if the plaintiffs proved the last mile constraint inequality was a trade secret, there was little evidence that any of the defendants’ employees had knowledge of the inequality while employed by the plaintiffs. Thus, the district court concluded that the plaintiffs failed to show a likelihood of success on the last mile constraint trade secret claims.

No irreparable harm. The district court found that the plaintiffs could not establish irreparable harm, and this failure was fatal to its injunction request. While the plaintiffs are likely to suffer economic harm from direct competition or other business challenges, they did not attempt to provide an estimate of the loss or much evidence explaining the irreparable harm caused by its brand. The plaintiffs provided no proof of actual or imminent harm, which cannot otherwise be compensated by money damages. Further, the district court noted that the plaintiffs became aware of Cosmic Frog in November of 2022, but waited approximately two years to file suit, and then waited an additional five months to file a motion for preliminary injunction. While there may be valid reasons for delay, delay generally weighs against a finding of irreparable harm.

Balance of equities. The district court noted that if a preliminary injunction is denied, the plaintiffs may suffer some amount of monetary harm and other losses. On the other hand, because Optilogic only has one product, it would have no products, which would likely result in the defendants’ business closing. Thus, the risks of injury to the defendants are much greater than the risks of injury to the plaintiffs. Accordingly, the district court found that the third factor weighed against a preliminary injunction.

Public interest. The district court found this factor was neutral.

The district court noted that the law places the emphasis on the first two factors, only balancing all four if the first two factors support a preliminary injunction. Here, the first two factors did not support a preliminary injunction. Accordingly, the district court denied the plaintiff’s injunction request.

The Case is No. 24-1275-RGA.

Judge: Andrews, R.

Attorneys: Anthony David Raucci (Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP) for Coupa Software Inc. and LLamasoft LLC. Jared Newton (Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP) for Optilogic, Inc. and Donald Hicks.

Companies: Coupa Software Inc.; Llamasoft LLC; Optilogic Inc.

Cases: Copyright TechnologyInternet TradeSecrets DelawareNews