IP Law Daily, TRADE SECRETS—D. Me.: Industrial gas supplier secures preliminary injunction enforcing confidentiality, non-solicitation covenants, (Jul 16, 2026)

By Mandavi Singh, LL.M.

A former regional manager's retention of company files and servicing of shared customers likely breached his employment agreement.

An industrial gas supplier obtained a preliminary injunction requiring a former regional manager to return an external hard drive containing the company's files and to comply with contractual non-solicitation obligations. The federal district court in Maine found the company was likely to succeed in its breach of contract claim. Rather than deciding the merits of the supplier's federal and state trade-secret claims, the court concluded that the contractual violations alone justified injunctive relief (Nippon Sanso Matheson, Inc. v. Erik M. Miskin & Maine Oxy-Acetylene Supply Co., No. 2:26-cv-00290-SDN (D. Me. Jul. 10, 2026)).

Dispute. Plaintiff Nippon Sanso Matheson Inc. (Matheson) supplies industrial, medical, specialty, and electronics gases and related services throughout the United States, including Maine. Defendant Maine Oxy-Acetylene Supply Company (Maine Oxy) is a competing supplier of industrial gases in Maine. Defendant Erik M. Miskin (Miskin) worked for Matheson for more than 20 years before being promoted to Regional General Manager for the Northeast region in 2022. As a condition of that promotion, he executed a covenant not to compete, confidentiality, and intellectual property protection agreement that required him to return company property upon termination, prohibited him from soliciting Matheson customers for one year after leaving the company, and barred him from disclosing confidential information. Miskin had also signed earlier confidentiality and noncompetition agreements and annually acknowledged the company's code of conduct governing confidential information.

Matheson alleged that between March and April 2026, Miskin exported more than 2,000 confidential files to a personal external hard drive before resigning and joining Maine Oxy. The files allegedly included customer contracts, pricing agreements, financial reports, budgets, cost structures, profit-margin data, compensation information, and strategic and operational materials, including information maintained in restricted-access systems. According to Matheson, Miskin subsequently retained the information and intended to use it for Maine Oxy's benefit and solicited Matheson's customers after joining the competitor. The amended complaint asserted claims under the Defend Trade Secrets Act, the Maine Uniform Trade Secrets Act, breach of contract, breach of the company's code of conduct, breach of the duty of loyalty, and contractual indemnification.

The defendants disputed the allegations, asserting that Matheson encouraged employees to back up company files on external hard drives; that Miskin inadvertently failed to return the drive after resigning; that Maine Oxy never accessed or used its contents; and that the drive remained secured in defense counsel's office. They also denied improperly soliciting customers, maintaining that the companies at issue already did business with Maine Oxy and that Miskin had agreed not to service shared customers during the contractual restriction period.

Contract claim. Matheson sought a preliminary injunction requiring Miskin to return the hard drive and comply with the non-solicitation covenant. The court concluded that the requested relief could be granted solely based on the 2022 employment agreement, without resolving the parties' factual disputes regarding trade-secret misappropriation. Citing Progress Engineering, LLC v. Bennett, No. 22-cv-00257, 2022 WL 16701324 (D. Me. Nov. 3, 2022), the court held that a likelihood of success on the breach-of-contract claim alone supported preliminary injunctive relief.

Hard drive. The court first addressed the agreement's requirement that departing employees return company property. During oral argument, defense counsel acknowledged that Miskin had "no legal basis" to retain the hard drive after his employment ended. Although the defendants asked the court to require a mutually agreed computer forensics expert to examine the drive before its return, the court declined to impose such a condition because the agreement contained no provision permitting Miskin to withhold company property pending forensic review. Whether the drive had been retained intentionally or inadvertently was a matter for later proceedings, the court said, but Matheson was entitled to its immediate return.

Customer contacts. Further, the court found that Matheson was likely to prevail on its claim that Miskin breached the agreement's non-solicitation covenant. Although the defendants denied soliciting new customers, they acknowledged that Miskin had serviced three customers shared by Matheson and Maine Oxy after joining the competitor. The court concluded that providing services to those customers could, in itself, violate the agreement's prohibition on providing the same or similar products or services to Matheson's customers. Again, relying on Progress Engineering, the court found a reasonable factfinder could conclude that Miskin breached the agreement.

Irreparable harm. Next, the court determined that Matheson had demonstrated irreparable harm. Allowing a former employee to retain confidential business records while continuing to interact with the employer's customers in violation of a restrictive covenant threatened harm that could not readily be measured or compensated through monetary damages. Citing Progress Engineering and Covetrus Inc. v. Taffere, No. 25-cv-00395, 2025 WL 4481814 (D. Me. Sept. 3, 2025), the court concluded that the potential loss of goodwill, customer relationships, and competitive position warranted injunctive relief, particularly because Matheson described the retained information as the "crown jewels" of its business strategy.

Equities. The balance of equities also favored Matheson, the court found. The injunction did not enforce the agreement's noncompetition covenant and therefore did not prevent Miskin from continuing his employment with Maine Oxy. Instead, it merely required compliance with contractual obligations that Miskin had already accepted. The court also found no public interest weighed against enforcement of the retention and non-solicitation provisions.

Relief. Thus, the court granted Matheson's request for a preliminary injunction on its breach-of-contract claim. It ordered that, through April 24, 2027, Miskin must not service or solicit Matheson's customers, must return the external hard drive within seven days, must refrain from accessing, copying, using, or disseminating Matheson's digital files, must destroy any copies in his possession, and must file a declaration describing any dissemination of the company's confidential information. Finally, the court denied without prejudice Matheson's request for preliminary injunctive relief on its DTSA, MUTSA, and remaining claims.

The Case is No. 2:26-cv-00290-SDN.

Judge: Neumann, S.

Attorneys: Sigmund D. Schutz (Preti, Flaherty LLP) for Nippon Sanso Matheson Inc. Peter J. Brann (Brann & Isaacson) for Erik M. Miskin.

Companies: Nippon Sanso Matheson Inc.

Cases: Trademark MaineNews