IP Law Daily, TRADE SECRETS—E.D. Mo.: Technology company obtains narrow preliminary injunction against former employee, (Nov 21, 2025)

By Kevin M. Finson, J.D.

A claim for trade secrets misappropriation was not likely to succeed on the merits because there was no evidence a former employee had actually retained trade secrets, but an injunction would still issue as to enforcement of a non-compete agreement.

A technology company was entitled to a narrow injunction enforcing its restrictive covenants, the U.S. District Court in St. Louis has held. The court found that the employee in question could continue his new employment as long as he did not engage with industries and customers of the old employer. However, the company’s claim for trade secrets misappropriation was not likely to succeed on the merits because there was no evidence the former employee had actually retained trade secrets (Emerson Electric Co. v. Ceasar, No. 4:25-cv-01312-HEA (E.D. Mo. Nov. 20, 2025)).

Emerson Electric Co. (Emerson) was a global technology, software, and engineering company, and employed for some time Jacob Ceasar as its Director of North America Project Pursuit. As part of accepting a stock award, Ceasar signed a non-competition and non-solicitation agreement. Ceasar eventually left Emerson and began working for Endress+Hauser, a potential competitor with Emerson. After Ceasar was reminded of his contractual obligations, Endress+Hauser undertook to reassign him to ensure he was not working with industries or customers he had worked with at Emerson. Emerson brought suit for breach of contract and misappropriation of trade secrets under Missouri Uniform Trade Secrets Act (MUTSA), and sought a preliminary injunction. The court considered the traditional injunction factors.

Likelihood of success on the merits. As to the breach of contract claim, the court found that Emerson had shown there was an enforceable non-competition agreement and that Ceasar could be enjoined from working for Endress+Hauser in those industries in which he had worked with Emerson. However, the court kept the scope of the finding narrow and found that it was undisputed that Ceasar’s work at Emerson had not involved the data center industry, the industry in which he was working under his new employer. As to trade secrets, the court found that the evidence did not show Ceasar had disclosed any of Emerson’s trade secrets or had taken any documents or files containing such secrets from Emerson.

Irreparable harm. The court found that under Missouri law a breach of a non-competition agreement was a per se irreparable injury, noting the risk of loss of client relationships which could not be readily compensated with monetary damages. This element was met at least as to Ceasar’s employment servicing customers and industries with which he had worked while at Emerson.

Balance of harms. The court determined that the risk of harm to Emerson in the form of loss of its customers and contracts as well as disclosure of sensitive information outweighed the harm to Ceasar, because Ceasar could continue to work for his new employer in a non-conflicting role and because Ceasar had affirmatively agreed to the terms of the restrictive covenant.

Public interest. The court also found that enforcement of reasonable restrictive covenants was in the public interest The court granted the preliminary injunction to the limited extent of prohibiting Ceasar from acting in any capacity with a direct competitor of Emerson in those industries in which he had worked while at Emerson, disclosing any of the claimed trade secrets, and from soliciting any customers he had serviced during his time at Emerson.

The Case is No. 4:25-cv-01312-HEA.

Judge: Autrey, H.

Attorneys: James B. Martin (Dowd Bennett LLP) for Emerson Electric Co. Gerard T. Carmody (Carmody MacDonald PC) for Jacob Ceasar.

Companies: Emerson Electric Co.

Cases: TradeSecrets MissouriNews