Massachusetts Court Rules on Trade Secret Injunctions
The state supreme court clarifies that plaintiffs must prove irreparable harm to secure a preliminary injunction.
Updated on Oct. 28, 2026 in Criminal Justice
Live Poll
Should courts require companies to provide additional proof of harm before issuing trade secret injunctions?
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that companies filing trade secret lawsuits cannot automatically obtain a preliminary injunction. Plaintiffs are now required to demonstrate irreparable harm to succeed in their request.
Why it matters
This decision changes how trade secret litigation proceeds in Massachusetts courts by requiring a more rigorous evidentiary standard for plaintiffs. It removes the presumption that a likelihood of success on the merits is sufficient to justify immediate injunctive relief.
The ruling in Daikin Applied Americas Inc. v. Russo establishes that plaintiffs must prove irreparable harm to obtain a preliminary injunction. This decision mandates the application of ordinary equitable principles rather than granting automatic relief.
The players
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
This is the highest appellate court in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and serves as the final arbiter of state law.
Daikin Applied Americas Inc.
The company was the plaintiff in the trade secret litigation that led to this significant judicial precedent regarding injunction standards.
Russo
The defendant in the litigation that prompted the supreme court to clarify the requirements for obtaining preliminary injunctions.
The details
The court held that success on the merits of a trade secret claim does not create an automatic presumption of irreparable harm. Consequently, parties seeking court orders to protect trade secrets must satisfy traditional equitable burdens to prove that the potential harm warrants immediate intervention.
Timeline
October 14, 2026: The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court issued the Daikin Applied Americas Inc. ruling.
Legal Context
This decision marks a significant departure from previous judicial patterns that often granted injunctive relief based primarily on the likelihood of success on the merits. The ruling aligns Massachusetts practice with more rigorous equitable standards that require specific proof of harm.
This ruling impacts business owners and legal departments in Massachusetts by setting a higher burden of proof for securing preliminary injunctions in trade secret disputes. Litigants will now need to focus more heavily on documenting irreparable harm during the early stages of a case.
The takeaway
Companies operating in the state should ensure their legal strategies for protecting trade secrets include thorough documentation of potential harm from the outset of any dispute. Demonstrating concrete damage is now a mandatory step for securing court-ordered injunctions.
Further reading
For more analysis on state legal standards, see Criminal Justice.
Source note: This article includes information reported by Law360.
Live Poll
Should courts require companies to provide additional proof of harm before issuing trade secret injunctions?
