NIGHT VISION DEVICES, INC. v. CARSON INDISTRIES, INC., 5:19-cv-04686

Night Vision Devices (Night Vision) manufactures BNVD dual-tube digital night-vision goggles; Carson Industries is a supplier, customer, and competitor.
Night Vision provided Carson a demo BNVD unit (with a new digital push-button switch) under a 2018 non-disclosure agreement; Carson kept the unit at various times beyond agreed return dates.
Night Vision alleges Carson disassembled/reverse-engineered the Demo Unit, contacted Night Vision’s suppliers for optics and circuit boards, and developed a competing BNVD product introduced in Sept. 2019.
Night Vision sued (breach of NDA, tortious interference, common law unfair competition) and moved for a preliminary injunction to enjoin Carson from using Night Vision’s confidential information, sourcing from Night Vision’s exclusive suppliers for a dual-tube device, and selling/marketing a BNVD look-alike or using the “BNVD” abbreviation.
The Court considered the four-factor preliminary injunction test (likelihood of success, irreparable harm, balance of harms, public interest) and focused on whether Night Vision made the required clear showing of likely irreparable harm.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Use/misuse of confidential information (Breach of NDA)	Carson reverse-engineered demo unit and used confidential info; misuse itself causes irreparable harm	Any confidential disclosure already occurred; cannot be undone so injunction cannot protect what’s revealed	Denied — injunction inappropriate because alleged secret is already disclosed; cannot "put toothpaste back in the tube"
Trade-dress/confusion from similar product and use of term “BNVD”	Carson’s product copies BNVD look-and-feel and uses the abbreviation, causing marketplace confusion and goodwill loss	No evidence of actual confusion; BNVD term used by others; products are physically distinguishable	Denied — insufficient evidence (no surveys/experts); single comment and photos inadequate to show likely confusion
Lost sales and market opportunities	Carson’s conduct caused loss of sales opportunities (e.g., Colombian government) and will cause future market share loss	No proof of likely future sales loss or causal link; past missed opportunity already transpired	Denied — speculative and unsupported; past loss not grounds for prospective irreparable harm

Ferring Pharm., Inc. v. Watson Pharm., Inc., 765 F.3d 205 (3d Cir. 2014) (preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy and standards for granting relief)
Issa v. Sch. Dist. of Lancaster, 847 F.3d 121 (3d Cir. 2017) (movant must clearly show immediate irreparable injury)
Reilly v. City of Harrisburg, 858 F.3d 173 (3d Cir. 2017) (likelihood of success and irreparable harm are the most critical injunction factors)
In re Revel AC, Inc., 802 F.3d 558 (3d Cir. 2015) (irreparable harm must be actual and imminent, not remote or speculative)
Opticians Ass'n of Am. v. Indep. Opticians of Am., 920 F.2d 187 (3d Cir. 1990) (irreparable harm requires more than a harm that can be remedied by money damages)
Ace Am. Ins. Co. v. Wachovia Ins. Agency Inc., [citation="306 F. App'x 727"] (3d Cir. 2009) (once confidential information is revealed, injunction cannot protect what is already disclosed)
Campbell Soup Co. v. ConAgra, Inc., 977 F.2d 86 (3d Cir. 1992) (a threat of disclosure can justify injunctive relief, but further protection is unnecessary once information is revealed)
Adams v. Freedom Forge Corp., 204 F.3d 475 (3d Cir. 2000) (establishing irreparable harm is a demanding burden)