GlaxoSmithKline LLC v. Brooks
8:22-cv-00364
| D. Maryland | Feb 15, 2022Background
- GSK, a pharmaceutical manufacturer, alleges it maintains confidential manufacturing processes, SOPs, training materials, and a proprietary Quality Management System as trade secrets.
- Denise Brooks was a GSK Quality Systems Lead from 2006 until her resignation on January 13, 2022, with access to those materials.
- GSK alleges Brooks arranged to swap laptops with IT on the eve of her resignation; IT uploaded her OneDrive to the new laptop (ZBook), creating local copies, and Brooks left the facility with the ZBook and her badge.
- GSK further alleges Brooks emailed GSK documents to a personal account and copied files to external drives around her resignation; a forensic consultant supports these concerns.
- GSK repeatedly demanded return of property and cooperation; Brooks retained counsel and did not substantively engage; GSK filed for a TRO seeking return/preservation of devices/data and a limited third‑party inspection.
- The court granted GSK's TRO request pending further proceedings and set scheduling/hearing dates.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether GSK is likely to succeed on DTSA/MUTSA misappropriation claims | Brooks had authorized access but acquired copies of trade secrets by improper means (removing laptop/files, emailing to personal account) and breached confidentiality and return policies | Brooks disputed facts (implicitly) and did not substantively engage; no developed defense in the record | Court: GSK likely to succeed; allegations and supporting declarations show improper acquisition and possession of trade secrets |
| Whether GSK will suffer irreparable harm without preliminary relief | Loss of trade secrets is irreversible and could cause unquantifiable, permanent business injury if disclosed to competitors | Any monetary damages would be speculative; Brooks offered no effective rebuttal | Court: Irreparable harm likely; trade‑secret loss justifies TRO |
| Whether the TRO is in the public interest | Protecting trade secrets and preventing unfair business practices serves the public interest | No public interest against protecting confidential manufacturing and safety‑related processes | Court: Public interest favors granting the TRO |
| Whether the requested remedial measures (return, preservation, limited third‑party inspection) unreasonably burden Brooks’ privacy | GSK needs to verify removal of misappropriated data; inspection limited to devices used to copy GSK material | Third‑party inspection implicates privacy; burden on Brooks | Court: Balance favors GSK; limited scope of inspection is appropriate and does not outweigh GSK’s interest |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Microsoft Corp. Antitrust Litig., 333 F.3d 517 (4th Cir. 2003) (describing TRO/preliminary injunction purpose to preserve the status quo)
- Winter v. Natural Res. Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (plaintiff must show likelihood of success, irreparable harm, balance of equities, and public interest)
- Real Truth About Obama, Inc. v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 575 F.3d 342 (4th Cir. 2009) (Fourth Circuit requires each Winter factor be satisfied independently)
- Dewhurst v. Century Aluminum Co., 649 F.3d 287 (4th Cir. 2011) (applying Winter factors in preliminary‑injunction context)
- Brightview Grp., LP v. Teeters, 441 F. Supp. 3d 115 (D. Md. 2020) (trade‑secret protection supports injunctive relief; public interest favors protection)
- Sys. 4, Inc. v. Landis & Gyr, Inc., [citation="8 F. App'x 196"] (4th Cir. 2001) (misappropriation may be established by acquisition through improper means without showing use)
- Direx Israel, Ltd. v. Breakthrough Med. Corp., 952 F.2d 802 (4th Cir. 1991) (irreparable harm requires injury that is certain, great, actual, and not remediable by money damages)
- Weinberger v. Romero‑Barcelo, 456 U.S. 305 (1982) (courts must consider public consequences when granting extraordinary injunctive relief)
- Blackwelder Furniture Co. v. Seilig Mfg. Co., 550 F.2d 189 (4th Cir. 1977) (prior Fourth Circuit framework for balancing hardship before Real Truth; discussed in context of standards)
- Continental Group Inc. v. Amoco Chems. Corp., 614 F.2d 351 (3d Cir. 1980) (balancing harms to parties and interested persons when evaluating injunctions)
- Delaware River Port Auth. v. Transamerican Trailer Transp., Inc., 501 F.2d 917 (3d Cir. 1974) (considerations for equitable balancing in injunctive relief)