The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has vacated a preliminary injunction against Steven Hatcher and Kent Power, Inc. in a case concerning the alleged misappropriation of trade secrets by UEC Holdings, Inc. The court's decision, filed on September 17, 2026, has significant implications for the ongoing legal battle between the parties involved.
The case, UEC Holdings, Inc. v. Steven Hatcher, No. 25-6123, revolves around accusations that Hatcher, a former Vice President at United Electric Company, shared confidential information with Kent Power, Inc., a competitor. The court's ruling affects not only the defendants but also raises questions about the handling of trade secrets in the business sector.
Background
UEC Holdings, Inc. is the parent company of United Electric Company, a Kentucky-based contractor that provides electrical construction and utility services. Hatcher served as Vice President of United Electric's utility division until he was terminated in August 2025 for various performance issues. Following his termination, UEC conducted a forensic review of Hatcher's work devices and discovered communications between him and Troy Kent, the owner of Kent Power, regarding confidential pricing and bid materials.
In response to these findings, UEC filed a lawsuit against Hatcher, Kent, and Kent Power, alleging misappropriation of trade secrets under federal and state laws. The company sought a preliminary injunction to prevent the defendants from working with Louisville Gas & Electric (LG&E), a client of United Electric, and to allow forensic examiners access to the defendants' electronic devices to retrieve any confidential information.
The Ruling
The district court initially granted UEC's request for a preliminary injunction, citing the likelihood of success on the merits of their claims and the potential for irreparable harm. The court found that the information shared by Hatcher had economic value and was not generally known, thus qualifying as a trade secret. However, the Sixth Circuit Court found that the district court had abused its discretion in granting the injunction.
The court ruled, "the Plaintiffs have failed to establish irreparable harm or show that the preliminary injunction order is narrowly tailored." The judges involved in the decision were Eugene E. Siler, Jr., Stephanie Dawkins Davis, and Kevin G. Ritz.
The appellate court noted that UEC had not demonstrated that the contract between Kent Power and LG&E posed a direct threat to United Electric's business, as the latter could not perform the type of work Kent Power was contracted for. The judges highlighted that the plaintiffs did not provide sufficient evidence of imminent harm to their business, which is a necessary condition for granting a preliminary injunction.
Impact
The court's decision to vacate the injunction has significant implications for both UEC Holdings and Kent Power. By determining that UEC failed to prove irreparable harm, the ruling sets a precedent for future cases involving trade secrets and preliminary injunctions. It emphasizes the necessity for plaintiffs to provide concrete evidence of imminent harm when seeking such relief.
This ruling may also affect how companies approach the protection of their trade secrets, as it underscores the importance of demonstrating actual competitive harm rather than relying on speculative fears. Businesses involved in similar disputes may need to reassess their strategies for safeguarding confidential information and preparing for legal challenges.
What's Next
The district court's order has been vacated and remanded for further proceedings, which means the case will return to the lower court for additional hearings and determinations. It is unclear whether UEC Holdings will seek to appeal the Sixth Circuit's decision or if there are related cases pending.