Sixth Circuit Drops Clear-and-Convincing Test for Trade Secret Injunctions in PCC Airfoils Case

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on May 19, 2026, reversed a federal district court's denial of a preliminary injunction sought by PCC Airfoils, an Ohio maker of industrial gas turbine airfoils, against former engineer Justin Daugherty and his new employer, Consolidated Precision Products Corp. The panel held that the Northern District of Ohio erred by requiring each injunction factor to be proved by clear and convincing evidence. Courts must instead weigh the four factors together as equitable considerations. Daugherty, a 26-year engineer, left PCC without a non-compete. After he resigned, PCC found four documents with confidential airfoil information that he had potentially queued for printing in his last two days. Forensic analysis could not confirm that any were printed. PCC sued under the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act, the Ohio Uniform Trade Secrets Act, and a contract confidentiality claim. The appellate panel grounded its reasoning in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 and held that federal procedure governs even when state-law claims are involved, rejecting Daugherty's argument that Ohio's injunction rules should apply. It also noted that neither statute requires a heightened standard of proof. The panel stressed that its ruling does not decide whether PCC will ultimately obtain an injunction. On remand in June 2026, the district court again ruled against PCC, finding it had not shown a likelihood of success on its misappropriation claims. Whether either side will appeal that June ruling has not been reported.