## Facts

- Schlage Lock Company, a subsidiary of Ingersoll‑Rand, competed intensely with Kwikset in selling locks and related hardware, including substantial sales through The Home Depot.
- J. Douglas Whyte served as Schlage’s vice president of sales for major “big box” retailers and had access to confidential sales and marketing information.
- Whyte signed a confidentiality agreement and agreed to Schlage’s ethics code restricting disclosure of confidential information, but he did not sign a noncompetition agreement.
- Whyte resigned and accepted a similar senior sales position with competitor Kwikset.
- Schlage alleged Whyte possessed confidential materials (including customer-related documents) and that his new position would inevitably lead him to use or disclose Schlage’s trade secrets.
- Whyte denied misappropriation and asserted he destroyed or returned confidential materials and intended to comply with confidentiality obligations.

## Issues

1. Whether California recognizes the “inevitable disclosure” doctrine allowing an injunction against competitive employment absent proof of actual or threatened trade secret misappropriation.
2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by dissolving a temporary restraining order and denying a preliminary injunction barring Whyte’s employment and use/disclosure of alleged trade secrets.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed the order dissolving the temporary restraining order and denying a preliminary injunction.
- The court rejected the inevitable disclosure doctrine as inconsistent with California law and policy.
- The court held that even if Schlage identified protectable trade secrets, the record did not establish actual or threatened misappropriation sufficient to justify injunctive relief.
- Applying deferential review of preliminary injunction rulings, the court found no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s evaluation of likelihood of success and interim harms.

## Legal Principles

- California does not adopt the inevitable disclosure doctrine; courts will not enjoin a former employee’s competitive employment based solely on a claim that the new job will inevitably lead to trade secret use or disclosure.
- Injunctive relief under trade secret law requires proof of actual or threatened misappropriation, not merely the employee’s knowledge or a similarity between old and new job duties.
- Preliminary injunction decisions turn on (1) the likelihood of prevailing on the merits and (2) the relative interim harm from granting or denying relief.
- Appellate review of preliminary injunction orders is for abuse of discretion; reviewing courts do not reweigh evidence or reassess witness credibility.
- California’s public policy favoring employee mobility (including Business and Professions Code § 16600) disfavors restraints that function as after-the-fact noncompetition covenants.

## Conclusion

The court refused to restrain competitive employment based on inevitable disclosure and held that, without evidence of actual or threatened misappropriation, a former employer is not entitled to injunctive relief merely because a departing executive joins a competitor in a similar role.


Whyte v. Schlage Lock Co., 101 Cal. App. 4th 1443 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002)