BCD Technology Holdings, LLC et al. v. Paragon Micro, Inc. et al., No. 25 CV 6944, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Jan. 9, 2026) (Jenkins, J.).
Judge Jenkins issued an order setting the framework for an evidentiary hearing on Plaintiffs’ preliminary injunction motion in this Defend Trade Secret Act and non-competition case. The Court gave 3.25 to 3.5 hours per side providing guidelines for the amount of time for each witness’s direct and cross exam.
The Court also gave each party 25 minutes for argument after the witness testimony, and identified specific legal and factual issues the parties should address during argument. Those issues included:
- the basis for plaintiff’s standing;
- identification of the specific confidential information each individual defendant allegedly misappropriated;
- the current state of damages and anticipated future irreparable harm from continued misappropriation;
- damages stemming from conduct other than trade secret misappropriation; and
- the effect of the Seventh Circuit’s LKQ Corp. v. Rutledge, 96 F.4th 977 (7th Cir. 2024) decision on Plaintiffs’ non-competition agreement claims.
For plaintiffs seeking preliminary injunctions in trade secret cases, this order underscores the importance of being prepared to establish standing on a granular, claim-by-claim level. The Court’s emphasis on distinguishing damages from trade secret misappropriation versus other types of competitive harm suggests that overbroad injunction requests untethered to specific secrets will face skepticism. The Court’s structured, time-limited approach to the evidentiary hearing is an interesting, hands-on approach that is fairly unique, but I wonder if other judges will start to adopt the approach.