Kansas Supreme Court - 99536 – Wolfe Electric, Inc. v. Duckworth

testimony of an expert witness of Wolfe Electric who opined that the entire oven could be
completely reverse engineered and remanufactured in 3 1/2 months.
Greatly summarized, Wolfe Electric argues it met its burden to satisfy the elements
for injunctive relief and discusses how the trial court agreed. It cites Empire Mfg. Co. v.
Empire Candle, Inc., 273 Kan. 72, 86, 41 P.3d 798 (2002), to list the elements.
All parties cite Schlup v. Bourdon, 33 Kan. App. 2d 564, 567, 105 P.3d 720 (2005),
to argue our standard of review. Defendants argue we review de novo, while Wolfe
Electric argues we review for abuse of discretion.
We need not answer any of these particular questions because Wolfe Electric fails to
address another required element to justify the permanent injunction which it requested
and received. A plaintiff is required to show it actually succeeded on the merits of the
lawsuit, i.e., after a final determination of the controversy. See Steffes v. City of Lawrence,
284 Kan. 380, 394-96, 160 P.3d 843 (2007). Wolfe Electric cannot show this success
because we are reversing the jury's verdict and remanding for a new trial on all issues, e.g.,
liability. Consequently, whether the judge based the permanent injunction upon the jury's
now-reversed verdict ("[t]he jury concluded . . . that Defendants misappropriated Plaintiff's
trade secrets"), or made his own decision at the injunction hearing after considering the
same trial evidence ("and the Court agrees" with the jury), the permanent injunction simply
cannot stand as a matter of law. See Steffes, 284 Kan. at 395 ("Without such plaintiff
success on the merits, the injunctive inquiry may end under Kansas law."); see Alvarez,
953 So. 2d at 712-13 (because case was remanded for new trial on all issues due to
inconsistent jury verdict, reversed judgment and permanent injunction); News America
Marketing In-Store, LLC v. Emmel, 2011 WL 2222040, at *4 (11th Cir. 2011)
(unpublished opinion) (permanent injunction requires movant first establish success on
merits; accordingly, appellate court's vacation of district court's entry of summary
45