Elder Technologies v. Julie Visone and Inspiren

Background

Elder Technologies, Inc., doing business as Sage, sells technology for use in senior living facilities, including a nurse-call system and a fall-detection product. Julie Visone worked on Sage’s sales team for fewer than six months and signed a Proprietary Information and Inventions Agreement. The agreement included confidentiality provisions, a one-year restriction on performing services that were the same or similar to those she performed for Sage, and a one-year restriction on soliciting Sage’s customers or prospective customers.

Visone left Sage in April 2025 and began working for Inspiren in May 2025 as Head of Integrated Therapy Relationships. Sage sued Visone and Inspiren, asserting claims under the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act and New York law, along with claims for breach of the agreement, unfair competition, unjust enrichment, and interference with the agreement. Sage asked the court to order Visone to stop working at Inspiren and to prohibit both defendants from using, disclosing, or copying Sage’s alleged trade secrets.

Evidence and Findings

Sage argued that Visone disclosed confidential information after speaking with Inspiren executives at a conference, that Inspiren used Sage’s pricing information, and that Inspiren’s rapid release of a video about Sage’s fall-detection product showed that Visone had disclosed information. Sage later relied mainly on testimony from its chief executive about Visone’s activity on Sage’s Google Drive and alleged downloads of lists of senior living providers.

Visone and Inspiren denied that Visone shared Sage’s confidential or trade-secret information. They submitted evidence that Sage’s pricing was widely known in the industry, that Visone had no role in setting Inspiren’s prices, and that Inspiren had launched its nurse-call product before Visone joined the company. They also submitted evidence that Inspiren learned about Sage’s fall-detection product from other industry sources and that its founder had prepared the video before Sage publicly announced the product.

The court found that Visone’s work at Inspiren was different from her work at Sage. At Sage, she sold a nurse-call system to senior living facilities and was paid on commission. At Inspiren, she worked with therapy providers, was not in sales, did not sell nurse-call systems, and was not paid on commission. The court also found that Sage did not show that the pricing information or lists of senior living providers were secret, or that Visone or Inspiren improperly used or disclosed the information.

The court gave reduced weight to the chief executive’s supplemental testimony because Sage admitted that his accusation that Visone had remotely wiped her work laptop was false or, at minimum, unfounded. The court also found that Sage had not established a sufficient foundation for his testimony about Visone’s Google Drive activity. Even assuming Visone had emailed herself lists of senior living providers, the court found that the information was publicly available and that Sage had not shown any improper disclosure or use.

Legal Standard

A temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction use the same standard in this court. A preliminary injunction is an emergency order issued before a final judgment. To obtain one, a plaintiff generally must show likely irreparable harm, a likelihood of success on the merits or sufficiently serious questions combined with a strong balance of hardships, and that the injunction would serve the public interest.

Sage sought a mandatory injunction because its request would have required Visone to stop working at Inspiren and would have changed the existing situation. A party seeking that type of injunction must show a clear or substantial likelihood of success. The court held that Sage failed to meet that heightened standard.

Analysis

The court first held that Sage failed to show likely irreparable harm. Sage waited approximately three months after Visone left for Inspiren before filing the action and seeking emergency relief. The court also noted that Sage joined a request to delay the schedule for deciding the emergency application. The delay weakened Sage’s argument that immediate relief was necessary.

The court separately held that Sage had not shown a clear likelihood of success on any claim relevant to the application. For the trade-secret claims, Sage did not show that the information at issue was secret or that Visone or Inspiren improperly acquired, disclosed, or used it. For the non-compete claim, the court concluded that Visone’s role at Inspiren did not involve services that were the same or similar to the services she performed for Sage. For the non-solicitation claim, the evidence did not establish that Visone solicited Sage’s customers or prospective customers. The court also concluded that Sage had not shown likely success on its related unfair-competition, unjust-enrichment, or tortious-interference claims.

Because Sage failed to show irreparable harm and failed to show the required likelihood of success, the court did not address the balance of hardships or the public interest.

Disposition

Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil denied Sage’s application for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. The opinion did not dismiss the underlying lawsuit or resolve the parties’ claims at final judgment. The court also stated that its factual findings in the preliminary-injunction proceeding would not remain binding at later stages of the case.