Massachusetts Trade Secret Preliminary Injunctions: Prove the Harm, Tailor the Relief

Background 

A strong trade secret claim is not a substitute for proof of irreparable harm. In Daikin Applied Americas Inc. v. Russo, No. SJC-13881 (Mass. Oct. 14, 2026), the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held that likely success on a misappropriation claim does not create a presumption of irreparable harm. The court grounded its ruling in both the Massachusetts Uniform Trade Secrets Act and the traditional equitable principles the statute incorporates. It required a case-specific showing that the requested relief would prevent harm that a final judgment could not adequately remedy. 

Daikin alleged that two former employees took confidential business information and used it to compete through an HVAC company they had formed while still employed by Daikin. The defendants agreed to return the information and refrain from using it, and the trial court entered an order reflecting that agreement. They also expressed willingness to negotiate a narrower forensic search. The remaining dispute concerned a proposed one-year ban on soliciting 75 Daikin customers. The court affirmed denial of that additional restriction because Daikin had not demonstrated irreparable harm. 

Key Implications for Injunction Strategy 

Prove the Harm, Not Just the Misappropriation. The court required an independent assessment of the threatened injury, rather than presuming irreparable harm from likely success on the claim. Daikin argued at the motion hearing and on appeal that it faced a loss of customer goodwill, but its sole supporting affidavit did not assert threatened goodwill injury. Nor did the affidavit substantiate its argument that lost sales and future maintenance contracts could not be valued using historical information. Attorney argument could not fill those evidentiary gaps. 

Companies should obtain declarations from witnesses with firsthand knowledge explaining what the information enables a competitor to do, what injury is likely before judgment, and why damages cannot repair it. Depending on the facts, companies should consider whether threatened disclosure, loss of competitive advantage, or damage to goodwill would cause harm that money damages could not adequately remedy. However, generalized assertions of harm are not enough. The evidence must connect the information, threatened misuse, and anticipated injury. Economic harm generally is compensable through monetary damages, although a threat to the business’s very existence may make it irreparable. The governing inquiry remains whether the particular threatened injury can be adequately remedied through a final judgment. 

Match the Relief to the Remaining Risk. The defendants’ court-ordered return-and-nonuse protections narrowed the dispute, leaving Daikin to explain why a separate solicitation ban remained necessary. The court also noted that the employees had no non-solicitation or non-compete agreements. A misappropriation claim does not automatically justify a customer-solicitation restriction that the parties never negotiated. The decision does not categorically bar such relief absent a contract; the court affirmed because Daikin had not demonstrated irreparable harm. Employers concerned about post-employment customer solicitation should consider appropriately tailored, enforceable non-solicitation agreements rather than relying on trade secret protections alone. Such agreements do not eliminate the need to establish the requirements for preliminary injunctive relief. Plaintiffs should tie each requested provision to a demonstrated risk that narrower protections would leave unresolved. Defendants, in turn, may use targeted confidentiality commitments to focus the court on whether broader competitive restraints are justified. 

Build the Record Before the Emergency. Access controls, confidentiality agreements, documented secrecy measures, and disciplined employee off-boarding help establish protected status and support an evidentiary record warranting emergency relief. They do not, however, substitute for proof that the particular threatened harm cannot be compensated with money. Companies should identify key information and knowledgeable witnesses before an employee departure or suspected misuse forces a rushed investigation. 

Takeaway 

Daikin does not foreclose trade secret preliminary injunctions, but it makes the harm record and the scope of the requested order central to obtaining one. Assess irreparable injuries beyond quantifiable economic harm early, budget for supporting declarations, and revisit proposed restrictions as protective measures are agreed upon. Where federal Defend Trade Secrets Act claims are also asserted, parties should evaluate the governing federal authorities rather than assume that a presumption of irreparable harm is available.