Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherJoin the NetworkGet StartedSubscribeSupportContact
Search
Close

Catching the thief red-handed isn't enough to win a trade secrets case

By Jonathan Hyman on September 23, 2026
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn

You can prove trade secrets theft cold and still lose the injunction.

That’s the lesson from the 6th Circuit’s recent decision in UEC Holdings v. Hatcher.

Steven Hatcher was VP of the utility division at United Electric, a Kentucky contractor. United Electric fired him in August 2025 for poor performance, dishonesty, and safety violations. Pulling his devices, the company found a month of texts with Troy Kent, owner of competitor Kent Power. Hatcher had shared pricing models and union hiring rates, then deleted the texts before turning in his phone. At the hearing, he didn’t even deny some of what he shared was trade secret information. And when asked on the witness stand whether he’d had Hatcher review the pricing before submitting it to LG&E, Kent admitted: “Yeah, in some way.”

The trial court granted a sweeping injunction anyway. The 6th Circuit vacated it.

There are two reasons why the court vacated the injunction, and both matter to any employer suing a departing exec for stealing trade secrets.  

First, fear of competition is not irreparable harm. Kent Power had landed a contract with a shared customer, Louisville Gas & Electric, around the same time Hatcher was sharing the stolen data. But it was work United Electric can’t perform, and Kent Power’s two actual attempts to win business United Electric does perform were both rejected. No lost accounts. No lost revenue. Just a worry that it might happen someday. The court called that a “generalized fear of a larger competitor” and held that fear alone doesn’t support an injunction, no matter how bad the underlying conduct looks.  

Second, the remedy has to be tailored to the harm, not just deserved. The trial court also ordered forensic examiners to search “all relevant data sources” on the defendants’ devices for “responsive items.” No named custodians. No defined scope. No protocol protecting the defendants’ own confidential data, or their employees’ health records, from exposure along the way. A verbal “agreement in principle” on safeguards didn’t cut it. Vacated.

Winning on the merits and winning an injunction are two different fights. Trade secrets law makes plaintiffs win both. And just because you can prove a departed employee did something “bad” doesn’t mean you can enjoin him from continuing to do it. You might just have to settle for money damages.

     

Related Stories

  • Your hourly employee’s second job is probably none of your business
  • Why your noncompete agreement could become “Exhibit A” in a discrimination lawsuit.
  • Apple v. OpenAI offers a master class in spotting trade secret theft before it’s too late

 

Photo of Jonathan Hyman Jonathan Hyman
Jon Hyman is a trusted advisor to small and mid-sized businesses across various industries, helping them solve workforce challenges and defend against legal disputes.
He is a shareholder at Wickens Herzer Panza in Avon, Ohio, where he chairs the firm’s Employment and Labor
…
Jon Hyman is a trusted advisor to small and mid-sized businesses across various industries, helping them solve workforce challenges and defend against legal disputes.
He is a shareholder at Wickens Herzer Panza in Avon, Ohio, where he chairs the firm’s Employment and Labor practice group and its Craft Beer practice group, and serves on the firm’s Board of Directors. Jon works closely with clients on all aspects of labor and employment law, providing proactive solutions to prevent issues and a strong defense in litigation when conflicts arise.
As outside in-house counsel, Jon is the go-to advisor businesses call when they need help with employee terminations, drafting policies, handling leave or accommodations, or navigating tricky internal complaints. He also brings deep expertise in areas like wage and hour compliance, workplace technology issues, and union avoidance. Jon builds lasting partnerships with his clients, understanding their unique challenges and helping them achieve long-term compliance and success
When it comes to litigation, Jon stands up for businesses in disputes over discrimination, harassment, wrongful discharge, non-competes, trade secrets, wage and hour issues, and union matters. Jon works with his clients to craft targeted defense strategies that protect their interests and aim for resolutions that support their broader business goals.
Jon also leads the firm’s Craft Beer practice, where he helps breweries, brewpubs, taprooms, and other craft beer businesses tackle their unique legal and regulatory needs.
Jon writes the award-winning Ohio Employer Law Blog, which the ABA Blawg Hall of Fame recognized for its daily insights on labor and employment law. His updates help his clients, HR professionals, and other business leaders stay ahead of labor and employment law changes that impact their daily operations.
Read more about Jonathan HymanEmailJonathan's Linkedin Profile
Show more Show less
  • Posted in:
    Intellectual Property
  • Blog:
    Ohio Employer Law Blog
  • Organization:
    Wickens Herzer Panza
  • Article: View Original Source

Call us at 1-800-913-0988 or email sales@lexblog.com.

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
The Library at LexBlog
  • About LexBlog
  • The Field We Built
  • Library at LexBlog
  • Our Beliefs
  • Our Team
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Disclaimer
  • Editorial Policy
  • Terms of Service
  • Get Started
  • Publishing Solutions
  • Compass
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
Copyright © 2026, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo