INVESCO INSTITUTIONAL v. DEUTSCHE INVESTMENT

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

Although irreparable injury cannot be presumed ( see Faiveley Transp. Malmo AB v Wabtec Corp., 559 F.3d 110, 118 [2d Cir 2009]), it may be established "where there is a danger that, unless enjoined, a misappropriator of trade secrets will disseminate those secrets to a wider audience or otherwise irreparably impair the value of those secrets" ( id.). Here, the court properly determined that plaintiff demonstrated that, without a preliminary injunction barring appellant from the continued use of its trade secrets, plaintiff "would likely sustain a loss of business impossible, or very difficult, to quantify" ( Willis of N.Y. v DeFelice, 299 AD2d 240, 242).

We have considered appellant's remaining arguments, including that the balance of the equities tipped in its favor, and find them unavailing.