Invesco Inst. (N.A.), Inc. v Deutsche Inv. Mgt. Ams., Inc.
2010 NY Slip Op 05701 [74 AD3d 696]
June 29, 2010
Appellate Division, First Department
As corrected through Wednesday, August 25, 2010


Invesco Institutional (N.A.), Inc., Respondent,
v
DeutscheInvestment Management Americas, Inc., Appellant, et al.,Defendants.

[*1]Baker & Hostetler LLP, New York (John Siegal of counsel), for appellant.

Alston & Bird LLP, New York (John F. Cambria of counsel), for respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Barbara R. Kapnick, J.), entered November 2,2009, which, after a hearing, granted plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction as to thatportion of the action asserting a claim for misappropriation of trade secrets in connection withcertain software tools, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff met its burden for the grant of a preliminary injunction by demonstrating (1) alikelihood of ultimate success on the merits; (2) the prospect of irreparable injury if theprovisional relief is withheld; and (3) a balance of the equities in its favor (Doe vAxelrod, 73 NY2d 748, 750 [1988]). Based upon the submissions and hearing testimony,particularly from plaintiff's expert witnesses, the court properly found that plaintiff had aprotectable trade secret in the proprietary nature of its Q-Tech, Alpha Sources and PIT softwareand database structure (see Ashland Mgt. v Janien, 82 NY2d 395, 407 [1993]).

Although irreparable injury cannot be presumed (see Faiveley Transp. Malmo AB vWabtec Corp., 559 F3d 110, 118 [2d Cir 2009]), it may be established "where there is adanger that, unless enjoined, a misappropriator of trade secrets will disseminate those secrets to awider audience or otherwise irreparably impair the value of those secrets" (id.). Here, thecourt properly determined that plaintiff demonstrated that, without a preliminary injunctionbarring appellant from the continued use of its trade secrets, plaintiff "would likely sustain a lossof business impossible, or very difficult, to quantify" (Willis of N.Y. v DeFelice, 299AD2d 240, 242 [2002]).[*2]

We have considered appellant's remaining arguments,including that the balance of the equities tipped in its favor, and find them unavailing.Concur—Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Friedman, Nardelli and Acosta, JJ.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.