This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

In 2007, while employed by P, the three men formed D and contacted P's clients. D asked those clients to do business with D prior to leaving P. They also secured permission from several clients to move the clients' equipment from P's shop to D's new location. On October 16, 2007, the three men resigned from P. P got a TRO, but the district court refused to grant a preliminary injunction. In assessing the propriety of preliminary injunctive relief, the district court applied the factors from the Dataphase case. The court found P had not made a showing sufficient to demonstrate that any of the materials Ds took constituted trade secrets under North Dakota law. P had not established a likelihood of success on the merits of the trade-secret claim. The court found P was likely to succeed on the merits of a statutory claim for breach of loyalty. The court examined the threat of irreparable harm and the balance of the harms of granting or not granting injunctive relief. Finally, the court examined the public's interest and held that injunctive relief was not warranted. This appeal resulted.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.