Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:Matrix Network Inc. sells digital video recorders (DVRs) and other closed circuit television components to companies that provide security services. Matrix hired Larry Ginn as an employee in 2004 to provide engineering and technical support services. Ginn worked previously for Matrix as an independent contractor through Ginn’s company GenOmega Software Systems Inc. In January 2005, Matrix learned that its DVR manufacturer, Intelligent Digital Integrated Security (IDIS) embedded software in its DVRs to provide remote viewing capability using dynamic domain name service (DDNS). IDIS named the new feature DVRNS. Matrix discussed this new feature with ADT, one of its largest customers. As result, Matrix planned to develop a service that would enable ADT to charge its customers for remote viewing of security cameras using DDNS and IDIS’s DVRNS. Larry Ginn helped develop the new product. After testing IDIS’s DVRNS software, Ginn prepared a report to IDIS suggesting, among other things, the inclusion of an authentification feature. ADT ultimately chose not to pursue the remote viewing service, and Matrix decided to develop and offer the service on its own. Matrix sought to combine the DVRNS software with an account management software developed by Ginn to control account access and manage remote viewing. Ginn indicated to Matrix, however, that IDIS had to supply the modifications the Ginn previously requested before he could write the account management software. IDIS informed Ginn it would supply the modifications by October. In August, Ginn resigned from Matrix to take a contract job with another company. He continued, however, to host Matrix’s Web sites, e-mail and perform other work for Matrix through his company GenOmega. Ginn and Matrix also had discussions about Ginn continuing to develop Matrix’s DDNS, although there was conflicting testimony at the hearing as to the parties’ understanding of these discussions. By mid-September, Ginn’s new contract job fell through. He therefore turned his attention to the DDNS remote viewing project. After seeking assistance from his brother Lonnie, Ginn obtained a DVR and other items. He also spoke to another software engineer who suggested an approach that did not use IDIS’s DVRNS embedded software. Ultimately, Ginn developed account management software that used DDNS to provide DVR remote viewing without IDIS’s DVRNS or the DVRNS modifications requested from IDIS. His product also contained additional features that Matrix’s product did not contemplate. Ginn formed a company with Lonnie called DVR Connections LLP to own, operate and host the software on its server. Matrix informed Ginn in mid-October that the IDIS modifications would be ready at the end of the month. Ginn responded that he had already completed account management software for a DDNS remote viewing service that did not require IDIS’ embedded software. Ginn and Lonnie met with Matrix representatives to demonstrate his system. Later, Ginn received a letter from Matrix asserting that in developing the remote viewing service he violated an nondisclosure agreement he signed as an employee at Matrix. Matrix sued Ginn, Lonnie, GenOmega and DVR Connections for breach of the nondisclosure agreement, breach of fiduciary duty, and unfair competition. Matrix then sought a temporary injunction, which the trial court denied. In its order, the trial court accepted Ginn, Lonnie, GenOmega and DVR Connections’ representation that they would comply with the first paragraph of the nondisclosure agreement which restricted the solicitation of Matrix customers and employees for one year after termination of Ginn’s employment. The trial court’s order further concluded that Matrix did not establish a probable right of recovery or that a probable imminent and irreparable injury would occur between now and the trial on the merits. Matrix appealed. HOLDING:Affirmed. For a temporary injunction to issue, the court stated, a movant must plead and prove: 1. a cause of action against the defendant; 2. a probable right to the relief sought; 3. a probable, imminent, and irreparable injury in the interim; and 4. no adequate remedy at law. The court focused its analysis on the third element of the temporary injunction test. Matrix, the court stated, argued that it would suffer a probable, imminent and irreparable injury absent a temporary injunction, relying in part on the testimony of Jim Tomcheck, Matrix’s president, stating his estimate that as of May 2006 Matrix lost about $100,000 in revenue from the delay in bringing their remote viewing service to market. But the court found that Tomcheck’s testimony did not establish probable, imminent and irreparable injury. Tomcheck, the court stated, testified that any alleged delay damage was capable of being remedied by a damage award at the conclusion of the trial. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court’s order, the court concluded that Matrix failed to establish that it faced probable, imminent and irreparable injury in the absence of a temporary injunction. Accordingly, the court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Matrix’s application for a temporary injunction. OPINION:Morris, J.; Morris, Whittington and Richter, J.J.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 1 article* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

Reprints & Licensing
Mentioned in a Law.com story?

License our industry-leading legal content to extend your thought leadership and build your brand.


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.