the same facts and the same arguments as force previous motion for preliminary injunction this was a clear error because core prevented significant new evidence in connection with this emergency motion against itself in the marketplace which it should not have to do why why does that come from mike that he irreparable what facts might make that scenario irreparable not adequately compensated damages on the assumption that the their very existence in business which perhaps they wouldn't have been had they not been infringing the and the apple need not only have used portions of this on for applications pending already but are trying to continue to use more of it and to introduce more of a fad into their own business  and you rely on the i guess the on site functionality of the software or work and or what i gather were actual customer and priceless are performing the tracing service it says among among other things it's a series of interactive spreadsheets and forms that will help the engineer determine how that tracing job needs to be done to ask that question talked about here that finding was a error or to show there is a likelihood of irreparable harm based on the misappropriation and all of the trade secret software application the errors lead to just record two erroneous you focused on the the loss of the property value consisting of the street secret if you went through this litigation at the end of the day  you won on the merits and they were very enjoyed they haven't disclosed this trade secret to anybody else so it becomes yours again what have you treaty crit is valuable to you because it was unable to you presumably to get more customers or charge them more because you can do things that your competitors ca if they were to disclose the trade secret then you would never be able thereafter to be uniquely in possession of the fact valuable service to come to customers but that's not what's at issue here so it feels to me as though you're making an argument about their use during the three years or something this litigation is going to is going to take and therefore that what you will lose in that period is or the apple even have been able to provide services in this and use all of the functionality of patients they would be able to provide services that could potentially be higher quality the more accurate it would allow them to be more that equipment and we're using those trade secrets that that was at the beginning of the last one score learned that they also had a copy of the software application which documents all aspects of the tracing business and if yes your honor that had been more recently added to the court asking this court to do is to reverse the district court and to direct entry of the injunction itself any other result i just reported we recognize that normally it might be more appropriate to remain and for furnace consideration by the district court but in this case we feel that any decision by the district court other than the injunction would be in use of this fashion if you know escapade if we were to do that severance is to the extent that is somehow tied to what we plainly have jurisdiction over namely the preliminary injunction and i can imagine that if there were a question about whether you are entitled to discovery that would enable a fairly big ation of the preliminary injunction question then we could we have pendants or sixteen to stay well to that extent the stay really has to be lifted but  as a result of the likely irreparable harm to core because had they acted continue to possess confrontation that very irreparable harm is the same reason why the state would be inappropriate as well the after they still have horse trade secrets and are still in a position to use them cor i haven't yet been able to take the summary of how much you still have been the apple leave have presented evidence showing that the some blower found additional core files on spectrums puter networks we don't know what there is are a didn't disclose that it's clear the taking of trade secrets was much more extensive than really should be affirmed because it was not an abuse of discretion to take him counsel's first assertion so you just recorded not told that the second hoshi was based on all of the same facts and the same arguments was no additional or different evidence of irreparable harm and the court had held in the first injunction that clear and failed to come forward with anything other than speculative assertions of harm and in its second motion present additional merits arguments about the software application it did not present anything other than this very same surgeons that had made the first time and if there was was a new fact of discovery possesses trade secrets as in it and is in a position to use them harm to the trade secret owner may be presumed it doesn't doesn't that the substantive lot of trade secrets and any state setting and this i would say no your honor to be in the first instance because of the question about whether someone is entitled to an injunction is a question of federal law governed by federal decisions including supreme court was court not stating that taking those cases that likely resided in the library on their own fast there is really a site in each of which involved a situation where an injunction had been granted based not understanding the broad language that is in those opinions the facts of those cases were that there was evidence credited by the driver board that the trade secret either had been used or was going to be used and in terms of the harm element i would look to the box case which was the one about fish inside th rable harm so i think that as with this case stands the federal law governs and the federal law requires some concrete non subjective evidence of reputable harm that has been put forward by the movement movement and the right to relief has to be clear and unequivocal to how in a circumstance like this where they have this tiny piece of information but the rest is secret namely how much you your client in fact  d that software and what portions it used and how how are they supposed to do anything other than trigger a law provided the kind of presumption about they didn't know anything more if everything about whether there is irreparable harm here is about what you did inside your offices and out in the field when you were you know dealing with with  with the people who were using you or your product at the or the well site or whatever whatever it is they had no idea and they couldn't find out with a stay at discovery well they first of all i would  him on the stand in fact in the first lunar injunction motion the district court itself held an evidentiary hearing on its own initiative said i want witnesses to come in here and testify on the questions including the question of irreparable harm and it was on the that she he wanted to do the right thing he said he was approached he did not use this he refused to use it he would not use it and then what we did was be new about this is we put him in charge of sex and put him in charge of the process of finding out is this doc is this file anywhere else it was not x tunnel hard drive it's not in the record that was actually in somebody's desk drawer which is why i'm covered before he then testified in his declaration i've looked everywhere i have not found it and i have given it to counsel and counsel now had so when if this case is now going to go forward after the state expires they can bring their claim but i would submit to you that they would not be able to course it is one thing maybe to say we can measure in dollars how much we've lost if you guys just by your being in business comparing it to the alternative here you guys are not in business at all and patents without the patent for entering you wouldn't have been in business we used to have all the customers now we have fewer than all the customers the prices used to be here and now they're here big big number but compensable because they use some of your words the damages would not be speculative trade secret harm much much smaller but almost impossible to measure because who knows which of the customers where you've got by being able to do the you know the nifty elations on the i pad in ten seconds instead of thirty seconds and which patents and that's very very i mean there's just so much guesswork and licenses yes but licenses even in the patent context are are i think are used as a pretty poor but sometimes unavoidable substitute for silly it could have been that in fact all of the customers they lost and the price erosion i guess documented the second time was in fact caused by the infringement of presumptively valid patents and so on but that's a very much harder thing to say about these much subtler the much subtler and more limited use of the trade secret and why i guess the point i'm wondering is whether the the substantive  remedies for trade secret in creating a kind of presumption irreparable harm here is backed up by the kind of explanation that i was just trying to i don't think so your honor i don't think they've relied harm that the district court had said was missing the first time around so court did in fact come forward with that the second time around i also think i want to point out texas l doesn't apply to the trade secret claim the case was originally filed in texas it was transferred for convenience under section fourteen zero four therefore the law of texas still applies the have to show is possession of the trade secret and being in a position to use it both of those are very clearly met here and and the likelihood of success  is is clearly established by correspondence and so to return to what chrissy can from this court and why it's appropriate to send it back and just recor with instructions to ensure that injunction and to severance is to say effectively any other decision by the district court says that former employees can leave their employer to trade secrets and confidential information from that employer use those trade secrets in competition fail to to produce them in discovery when they are sued by their employer because core several discovery requests before the stay the sought information about trade secrets that might be in the possession of the apple e's and the software application was never produced in response to any of those requests in discovery  and all of that isn't enough for an injunction so those employees wouldn't have to worry about being in joint or in a lawsuit and i think that for any district court to find that under these facts would be indecent discretion so unless