• March 6, 2020

We recently posted about a “brain raid” case in which a company vRad went after a former employee for violation of his non-compete and misappropriation of trade secrets. In our view, things did not look good for Mr. Rabern, the former employee, in opposing vRad’s threshold motion for a preliminary injunction to prevent Mr. Rabern from competing against vRad with his new employer, Nines.

Our pessimism about Mr. Rabern’s chances, we see now with 20/20 hindsight, was unfounded U.S. District Court Judge Patrick J. Schiltz (D. Minn.) wasted little time in rejecting vRad’s motion.

I guess we might deserve to savor some crow cobbler. But the lesson, the practice pointer: preliminary injunctions can be extremely difficult to get (and they can be extremely expensive).

As an aside, we note that Judge Schiltz concludes his decision with instructions: “Let judgment be entered accordingly.” Judgment on what? “Judgment” as used in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure includes “any order from which an appeal lies.” An appeal lies from denial of a motion for a preliminary injunction. So, apparently an order denying a motion for an injunction results in “a judgment” even if not a “judgment” in the sense that most of us understand the word (i.e., a “final decision of the court resolving the dispute and determining the rights and obligations of the parties“)?