2:22-cv-02610
E.D. Pa.Mar 20, 2023Background
- IQVIA sued former employee Erica Breskin and her new employer Slipstream IT after Breskin downloaded thousands of IQVIA internal, confidential files before and after leaving IQVIA to join Slipstream.
- IQVIA sought a preliminary injunction requiring return of IQVIA property, prohibiting use/disclosure of information, and inspection of devices and accounts.
- Slipstream moved to dismiss; the court dismissed many claims against Slipstream (including trade secret, tortious interference, unjust enrichment, and unfair competition). Misappropriation of trade secrets claims against Breskin were also dismissed.
- Remaining claims against Breskin were breach of contract, unjust enrichment, unfair competition, and a CFAA claim.
- The court held a preliminary-injunction hearing and considered affidavits from Breskin and Slipstream’s CEO stating the acquisition of IQVIA files was inadvertent, all IQVIA information was removed, and they have not and will not use or disclose it.
- The court denied IQVIA’s motion for a preliminary injunction (March 20, 2023), finding IQVIA failed the gateway requirements of likelihood of success on the merits and irreparable harm.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Likelihood of success on the merits | IQVIA contends it established prima facie claims (including misappropriation and related claims) supporting injunctive relief | Slipstream/Breskin point to dismissal of key claims and challenge sufficiency of IQVIA’s remaining claims | Court: IQVIA failed to show likelihood of success because key trade-secret and other claims were dismissed against Slipstream and trade-secret claims against Breskin did not survive motion to dismiss |
| Irreparable harm | IQVIA argues misappropriation, use, and disclosure of confidential information will cause irreparable harm (relying on trade-secret principles) | Defendants present sworn affidavits denying use/disclosure, asserting removal of materials, and characterize harm allegations as speculative | Court: No evidence of use/disclosure; absent surviving trade-secret claim and with affidavits, irreparable harm not shown |
| Need for return/inspection of devices and accounts | IQVIA seeks return and inspection to prevent misuse and preserve evidence | Defendants assert inadvertent acquisition and that they removed materials and will not use them | Court: Denied — relief not justified without showing of likelihood of success and irreparable injury |
| Preliminary-injunction standard (gateway factors) | IQVIA asserts it meets the standard and warrants extraordinary relief | Defendants argue IQVIA cannot satisfy the threshold gateway factors | Court: Applied Reilly framework; because IQVIA failed on likelihood and irreparable harm, PI denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Campbell Soup Co. v. ConAgra, 977 F.2d 86 (3d Cir. 1992) (intent to use or disclose a trade secret supports finding of immediate irreparable harm)
- Reilly v. City of Harrisburg, 858 F.3d 173 (3d Cir. 2017) (framework requiring movant to meet threshold gateway factors of likelihood of success and irreparable harm before balancing remaining factors)
- Kos Pharm., Inc. v. Andrx Corp., 369 F.3d 700 (3d Cir. 2004) (preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy to be granted only in limited circumstances)
- Continental Group, Inc. v. Amoco Chems. Corp., 614 F.2d 351 (3d Cir. 1980) (injunctions will not be issued merely to allay fears or restrain conduct a party is not attempting or intending)
- Issa v. School Dist. of Lancaster, 847 F.3d 121 (3d Cir. 2017) (movant need only show a prima facie case and a reasonable probability of success for preliminary relief)