Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, TRADE SECRETS—N.D. Ohio: Preliminary injunction denied in industrial gas turbine airfoils trade secrets dispute, (Jun 25, 2026)

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

A preliminary injunction was denied because the plaintiff was unable to establish a likelihood of success on its misappropriation claims or show that all other relevant factors for injunctive relief, when considered together, were in its favor.

In a trade secrets dispute, PCC Airfoils, LLC (PCC), a manufacturer for industrial gas turbine (IGT) airfoils was not entitled to a preliminary injunction against its former employee and its competitor because it was not likely to succeed on its misappropriation claims. The district court found that all factors for injunctive relief, when taken together, did not clearly show that PCC was entitled to preliminary injunctive relief (PCC Airfoils, LLC v. Daugherty, No. 1:25-cv-00917-BMB (N.D. Ohio Jun. 17, 2026)).

Background. Justin Daugherty worked for 26 years as an engineer at PCC Airfoils, LLC (PCC) a manufacturer for industrial gas turbine (IGT) airfoils. In 2025, Daugherty left his job at PCC and went to work for a competitor, Consolidated Precision Products Corp. PCC, believing that Daugherty had made off with precious trade secrets, sued its former employee along with his new employer for trade secrets violations. PCC also moved for a preliminary injunction to prevent the former employee from disclosing the trade secrets or working on products similar to the ones he worked on while at PCC. The district court, applying a clear and convincing standard to all four prongs of the preliminary injunction standard, rejected the preliminary injunction. The district court also found that PCC failed to present clear and convincing evidence that it met the other three prongs of the preliminary injunction test. PCC appealed, and the Sixth Circuit reversed and remanded the decision of the district court denying PCC’s motion for a preliminary injunction. According to the Sixth Circuit, the district court when it rejected a preliminary injunction after requiring that the PCC prove its case by a heightened “clear and convincing” standard. On remand, the district court reconsidered the motion for preliminary injunction under the proper test.

Preliminary injunction. In granting a preliminary injunction, the district court applied the four-factor test from Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008), considering (1) the likelihood of success on the merits, (2) irreparable harm to the plaintiff, (3) balance of equities, and (4) public interest.

Likelihood of success. PCC alleged actual misappropriation and threatened misappropriation of PCC’s trade secrets in violation of the Ohio Uniform Trade Secrets Act (OUTSA) and the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA). The requirements for establishing misappropriation of trade secrets are largely the same under Ohio and federal law, so the court analyzed these claims together in considering likelihood of success on the merits. The court found that PCC has demonstrated the existence of a protectable trade secret. The parties acknowledged that PCC’s SOPs and its IGT manufacturing process contain trade secrets. The parties also acknowledged the four documents queued for printing contained trade secrets. PCC asserted that it is likely to prevail on its claim for actual trade secret misappropriation because Daugherty in his final days of employment likely printed and kept four documents containing trade secrets. PCC relied heavily on printing logs. However, it was unable to prove the documents were printed or removed from PCC’s offices.

PCC then asserted that Daugherty had no legitimate business reason for accessing, much less printing, those documents when he did. However, AbouAbdallah’s credible testimony contradicts this assertion because he sought Daugherty’s support on a project that necessitated Daugherty’s review of those documents. Daugherty’s explanation for viewing the documents was corroborated by AbouAbdallah’s testimony and the emails discussing the cost estimate concerns. Daugherty also denied printing the records, removing the records, and disclosing PCC’s trade secrets or confidential information. Therefore, PCC did not establish that any of the four documents were printed, let alone removed from PCC’s offices. It also did not establish that Daugherty disclosed any of its trade secrets.

Next, PCC relied on the “inevitable disclosure doctrine” to support its claim for threatened misappropriation. However, a review of district court opinions revealed that the application of the inevitable disclosure doctrine in the absence of a valid non-compete agreement only when there is evidence of dishonesty, bad faith, nefarious conduct, or an intent to misappropriate. The court then adopted the three-step inquiry applied by other district courts in this circuit. Step one: Does the employee to be enjoined have “detailed and comprehensive knowledge of an employer’s trade secrets and confidential information?” If yes, step two: Was there a valid non-compete agreement? If not, step three: Has the moving party presented evidence of dishonesty, bad faith, nefarious conduct, or an intent to misappropriate? The court found that under step one, Daugherty had and may still recall confidential and trade secret information. Moving to step two, the parties acknowledged that Daugherty and PCC never entered into a non-compete agreement. Therefore, the court moved to step three and found no evidence of dishonesty, bad faith, nefarious conduct, or an intent to misappropriate. The court found that Daugherty had a legitimate business reason to view the four documents and there was no evidence those documents were printed in the days leading up to Daugherty’s departure from PCC. Additionally, given the legitimate reason Daugherty had for viewing the records, the possibility of printing was insufficient to demonstrate bad faith, nefarious conduct, or an intent to misappropriate PCC’s information. Similarly, there was no evidence Daugherty took those records, or any other records, to Consolidated Precision Products. Daugherty also credibly stated he can and will maintain his own ethical standards and comply with his legal obligations to PCC.

Turning to the breach of contract claim, the court concluded that PCC did not demonstrate a likelihood that Daugherty breached sections 2 or 3 of the Confidentiality and Innovation and Assignment Agreement (Agreement) with PCC or that his employment with Consolidated Precision Products would necessarily force him to breach his agreement. PCC did not present any evidence that Daugherty stole PCC’s trade secret information in his final days of employment nor that he disclosed trade secrets to Consolidated Precision Products. PCC also did not show an imminent threat of disclosure of its trade secrets. Thus, the court found that PCC did not show a likelihood of success on the merits, so this factor weighed against equitable relief.

Irreparable injury. PCC failed to establish the likelihood of irreparable injury if the preliminary injunction was not granted largely because its own employees attested to Daugherty’s character and ethical nature. The court noted that such testimony undercuts the argument that any threat of trade secret disclosures is imminent. Moreover, Daugherty credibly testified he would not need to rely on PCC’s trade secret information to perform IGT work at Consolidated Precision Products because Consolidated Precision Products’ own processes, equipment, materials, and data would necessarily be the foundation for his decision-making processes. Additionally, other high-level engineers have transferred between PCC and Consolidated Precision Products with no apparent harm to PCC after such employees accepted positions at Consolidated Precision Products. Therefore, at best, PCC demonstrated the possibility of an irreparable injury, which was not sufficient.

Harm to others. PCC urged that its requested injunction would result in minimal if any harm to the defendants because Daugherty was not currently working in IGT casting and had enough work to do at other Consolidated Precision Products facilities. However, to the defendants, an injunction preventing Daugherty from working on IGT casting would harm Daugherty’s livelihood, his financial stability, his professional reputation, and disrupt Consolidated Precision Products’ business operations. The court concluded that, it appeared that few would feel the effect of the requested injunction, and those who would be constrained by it can pursue Consolidate Precision Products’ many other endeavors or remain assigned to IGT while this matter is resolved.

Public interest. The court also ruled that the public interest would not be served by granting PCC’s requested injunctive relief because restraining Daugherty from directly or indirectly providing IGT casting services to Consolidated Precision Products would give PCC the benefit of a non-compete agreement it did not negotiate for and for which Daugherty was not compensated. The court noted that doing so would be endorsing the proposition that any employee with specialized knowledge that agreed not to disclose that knowledge can be forbidden from working for a direct competitor indefinitely.

Therefore, the court did not find that all factors, when taken together, clearly showed that PCC was entitled to injunctive relief. Accordingly, the court denied the motion for a preliminary injunction.

The Case is No. 1:25-cv-00917-BMB.

Judge: Brennan, B.

Attorneys: Kirsten Bordis Mooney (Fisher & Phillips) for PCC Airfoils, LLC. Henry G. Grendell (Kaufman, Drozdowski & Grendell) for Justin Daugherty.

Companies: PCC Airfoils, LLC

Cases: TradeSecrets ContractClaims RemediesDamages Procedure OhioNews