Trade secret and restrictive covenant disputes often turn on what happens at the outset of the case.
Once confidential information is disclosed, customers are solicited, or competitive activity begins, a later damages award may not fully repair the harm. For businesses seeking or opposing emergency relief in Ohio, the choice between state and federal court can therefore carry practical consequences.
The Sixth Circuit’s May 19, 2026 decision in PCC Airfoils, LLC v. Daugherty, 176 F.4th 509 (6th Cir. 2026), illustrates why. The court rejected the requirement that every preliminary injunction factor be established by clear and convincing evidence and reaffirmed that federal courts must evaluate the four factors together. The decision makes the governing injunction standard a legitimate forum consideration, although it should not determine forum choice by itself.
The Ruling and Its Limits
PCC alleged that a departing engineer, who was not bound by a noncompete agreement, took confidential documents before joining a competitor. PCC asserted federal and Ohio trade secret claims and breach of confidentiality obligations, seeking to prevent disclosure and restrict his work on competing airfoil projects. The Northern District of Ohio denied relief after requiring clear and convincing evidence supporting each injunction factor.
The Sixth Circuit reversed and remanded for application of the correct standard. It did not hold that PCC was entitled to an injunction, question the district court’s factual findings, or direct a particular result. The ruling addresses how a federal court evaluates a request for preliminary relief, not whether PCC ultimately proved its claims.
Federal Courts Assess the Record as a Whole
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65, courts consider the plaintiff’s likelihood of success, the risk of irreparable injury without relief, potential harm to others, and the public interest. PCC Airfoils confirms that these considerations operate on a sliding scale: a stronger showing on one factor may offset a weaker showing on another. The plaintiff must clearly establish an entitlement to relief overall, but need not satisfy a separate clear and convincing threshold for every factor.
To be clear, this sliding-scale flexibility still does not make preliminary relief easy to obtain. For example, a claim with no likelihood of success cannot support an injunction, and some risk of irreparable injury remains essential. The threatened injury must also be likely rather than merely possible. And, businesses still need concrete evidence connecting the challenged conduct to imminent harm that money damages cannot adequately remedy.
The Ohio Comparison
Ohio appellate decisions commonly require clear and convincing evidence supporting each preliminary-injunction factor while also directing courts to balance the factors. In AK Steel Corp. v. ArcelorMittal USA, LLC, 2016-Ohio-3285, ¶¶ 9–10 (12th Dist.), the court recited both requirements without explaining how balancing operates when the evidence supporting a particular factor falls short of the stated burden. Businesses seeking relief in Ohio state court should therefore be prepared to support every factor with clear and convincing evidence, rather than assume that strength elsewhere will overcome a deficient showing.
PCC Airfoils does not resolve that tension under Ohio law. Instead, it establishes that Ohio’s heightened evidentiary requirement does not govern preliminary-injunction requests in federal court. The distinction is not that Ohio courts lack equitable discretion; it is that federal courts may not impose a separate clear-and-convincing threshold on each Rule 65 factor. Counsel should assess the controlling state appellate decisions when evaluating how that distinction may affect a particular injunction request.
A federal court applies the federal preliminary-injunction framework even when the underlying claims arise under Ohio law, but Ohio's substantive law still governs the merits of those claims. In short, choosing federal court changes how the request for preliminary relief is evaluated; it does not change what a plaintiff must prove to win on the underlying claim.
What Businesses Should Consider
Before seeking emergency relief, businesses and counsel should assess jurisdiction and forum-selection provisions in the underlying contract. The governing preliminary injunction standard belongs in that analysis, but it should not determine forum choice by itself.
Whether seeking relief in Ohio state or federal court, businesses should promptly preserve relevant evidence, identify the confidential information or contractual interests at risk, and explain why the threatened injury is imminent and cannot be adequately remedied by damages. Requested restrictions should address the specific threat the evidence supports.
For parties opposing relief in federal court, PCC Airfoils forecloses a blanket demand for clear and convincing proof of every injunction factor. Defendants should instead address weaknesses in the merits, the absence of likely irreparable injury, and the harm the proposed order would cause. The decision changes how the court evaluates the request; it does not eliminate meaningful grounds for opposing it.
The Practical Takeaway
PCC Airfoils does not make preliminary injunctions easier to obtain in federal court or diminish the need for a developed evidentiary record. It confirms, however, that a federal court may not impose a clear-and-convincing burden on each Rule 65 factor and must instead evaluate the factors together. Businesses litigating in Ohio should consider that distinction at the outset, along with jurisdiction, removal risk, contractual forum provisions, court procedures, and the available evidence. The most effective injunction strategy remains one that aligns the forum, the proof, and the requested relief with the harm actually threatened.
* * * *
If you have questions, please reach out to the author(s).
The Commercial Litigation Update blog is currently edited by Jennifer O'Connor and Adam Paine.
