## Facts

- MicroStrategy and Business Objects competed in the business-intelligence software market.
- In earlier litigation, the court found Business Objects misappropriated two MicroStrategy trade-secret documents: a “Business Objects Competitive Recipe” and a “Volume Discount Schedule.”
- The court entered a permanent injunction barring Business Objects from using or disclosing the misappropriated information.
- About nine months later, Business Objects moved to dissolve the injunction, asserting the protected information had become stale in a fast-moving industry and that MicroStrategy was using the injunction’s existence to harm Business Objects competitively.
- MicroStrategy opposed dissolution, arguing the information remained confidential and valuable and that Business Objects failed to meet the standard for dissolving a permanent injunction.

## Issues

1. Whether Business Objects proved a significant change in circumstances such that continued enforcement of the permanent injunction was no longer equitable or necessary.
2. Whether generalized claims that software-industry information becomes obsolete quickly, without fact-specific proof, justify dissolving a trade-secret injunction.
3. Whether collateral competitive or reputational effects from an injunction warrant dissolution when the injunction still serves to prevent misuse of adjudicated trade secrets.

## Decision

- The court denied Business Objects’ motion to dissolve the permanent injunction.
- The court held Business Objects failed to present sufficiently concrete, non-conclusory evidence that the protected information had lost confidentiality or competitive value.
- The court found that broad assertions about rapid industry change did not establish that these particular trade secrets were no longer protectable.
- The court treated alleged marketplace harm from MicroStrategy’s use of the injunction’s existence as collateral and not a basis to terminate otherwise proper injunctive relief.

## Legal Principles

- A permanent injunction remains in effect unless the moving party shows a significant change in facts or law making continued enforcement inequitable or unnecessary.
- The burden to dissolve or modify a permanent injunction rests on the party seeking relief and requires fact-specific, evidentiary support rather than generalized or speculative assertions.
- Trade-secret status and the need for injunctive protection depend on whether the specific information remains confidential and competitively valuable, not on generalized claims about industry speed.
- Collateral competitive or reputational consequences of a valid injunction, without more, do not warrant dissolving relief that continues to serve its remedial purpose.

## Conclusion

The court refused to dissolve a trade-secret permanent injunction because the enjoined party did not substantiate changed circumstances showing the protected competitive and pricing information had become nonsecret or nonvaluable, and alleged marketplace effects from the injunction did not outweigh the continuing need to prevent further misuse.


MicroStrategy, Inc. v. Bus. Objects, S.A., 369 F. Supp. 2d 725 (E.D. Va. 2005)