According to Daikin Applied Americas, two employees allegedly exchanged emails from personal accounts beginning in 2024 that contained confidential company information. They formed RPAC in December of that year, and in March 2025, left Daikin to work for their new company. 

In May 2025, Daikin Applied Americas sued the defendants, alleging that they used the confidential information to compete for customers. The lawsuit alleges they misappropriated trade secrets under common law and the Massachusetts Uniform Trade Secrets Act.  

Daikin Applied Americas also moved for a preliminary injunction to prevent RPAC from soliciting 75 customers for one year and require them to withdraw any pending jobs.  

At the hearing for the injunction, the defendants agreed not to use any confidential information they possessed and would return it to Daikin Applied Americas. They also expressed a willingness to negotiate a limited forensic search of their files, but rejected Daikin’s request to restrict them from soliciting its customers. 

Daikin Applied Americas claimed it was likely to succeed on its trade-secret misappropriation claims. Because of that, it argued it was entitled to “a presumption of irreparable harm” it would suffer if an injunction wasn’t put in place, according to court documents. 

Looking for quick answers on air conditioning, heating and refrigeration topics? Try Ask ACHR NEWS, our new smart AI search tool. Ask ACHR NEWS

On Oct. 14, the court upheld a lower court’s decision, finding that Daikin Applied Americas failed to demonstrate irreparable harm that would justify restricting RPAC from soliciting its customers. The Supreme Court also rejected Daikin’s assertions that irreparable harm should automatically be presumed in trade secret cases. 

The Supreme Judicial Court pointed out that Daikin didn’t enter into noncompetition or non-solicitation agreements with the former employees. 

The court said potential losses from HVAC sales and maintenance contracts could be reasonably calculated and estimated. Daikin Applied Americas also didn’t provide enough evidence, they said, to support that the continued solicitation would damage its goodwill in a way monetary compensation couldn’t remedy. 

“The judge determined that a preliminary injunction to enjoin the defendants from soliciting Daikin Applied Americas' customers was not warranted because Daikin failed to demonstrate that it would suffer irreparable harm without such an order. Harm is irreparable if it cannot be remedied through a final judgment,” the decision says.  

The decision does not resolve Daikin Applied Americas' trade-secret claims. The defendants cannot use Daikin’s confidential information but can still solicit the 75 customers.