Faiveley Transport Malmo AB v. Wabtec Corp.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that an irreparable injury must be “neither remote nor speculative, but actual and imminent”
• concluding that “there was no basis for the entry of a preliminary injunction” when there was no showing of irreparable harm
• ruling that there is no presumption of irreparable injury even in the trade secret context
• holding that where “information concerning customer preferences and ordering patterns could easily be . . . obtained by contacting those customers directly,” that information could not be deemed a trade secret
• holding that no presumption of irreparable harm arises in trade secret misappropriation cases when defendant uses trade secret without disseminating it and the injury is in the form of lost income from sales
• stating that it is inappropriate to presume irreparable harm when a trade secret misappropriator 48 “seeks only to use [the misappropriated] secrets—without further dissemination or irreparable impairment of value—in pursuit of profit.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).