[PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 20-14217 ____________________ VITAL PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., a Florida corporation d.b.a. VPX Sports/Redline/Bang Energy, Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross Appellant, versus CHRISTOPHER ALFIERI, an individual, ANDREW LAROCCA, an individual, ELEGANCE BRANDS, INC., a Delaware corporation,

Defendants-Cross Appellees, USCA11 Case: 20-14217 Date Filed: 01/20/2022 Page: 2 of 34

2 Opinion of the Court 20-14217 ADAM PERRY, an individual,

Defendant,

AMY MAROS, an individual,

Defendant-Appellant-Cross Appellee.

____________________

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 0:20-cv-61307-AHS ____________________ Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, GRANT, and ANDERSON, Cir- cuit Judges. WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge: This appeal and cross-appeal involve the partial grant and partial denial of a motion for a preliminary injunction to enforce several restrictive covenants against the former employees of a pro- ducer of energy drinks. One former employee argues on appeal that she should not have been enjoined. The producer argues on USCA11 Case: 20-14217 Date Filed: 01/20/2022 Page: 3 of 34

20-14217 Opinion of the Court 3 cross-appeal that the district court should have enjoined additional former employees. Many, but not all, of the restrictive covenants—and the cor- responding provisions in the preliminary injunction—have ex- pired. So, we dismiss as moot the portions of the former em- ployee’s appeal that challenge the expired provisions. We also dis- miss as moot the entire cross-appeal, which concerns only the ex- pired covenants. But we have jurisdiction over—and reach the merits of—the former employee’s appeal from the unexpired pro- visions in the preliminary injunction. And we vacate those provi- sions because the producer failed to prove its entitlement to pre- liminary relief. I. BACKGROUND Vital Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a Florida corporation, produces and sells energy-drink products under the brand name “BANG.” It views itself as a competitor of “[c]ompanies such as . . . Red Bull, Rock Star[,] and Monster Energy.” And it considers itself “a recog- nized leader in the energy drink and sports nutrition markets.” In 2019, Vital made four hires relevant here. It hired Chris- topher Alfieri as vice-president of sales and distribution. It hired Adam Perry as director of sales and distribution. It hired Andrew LaRocca as director of distribution strategy. And it hired Amy Ma- ros as senior supply chain manager. When they accepted the job offers, these individuals signed employment agreements containing three restrictive covenants. USCA11 Case: 20-14217 Date Filed: 01/20/2022 Page: 4 of 34

4 Opinion of the Court 20-14217 They agreed not to work for “a [c]ompeting [c]ompany” “[d]uring the term of [their] employment with [Vital] . . . and for a period of one . . . year from [their] termination or cessation date.” They agreed not to solicit Vital employees to join a competing company, a provision that was also valid for one year from termination. And they agreed “never to disclose” or “to utilize for [their] own benefit, or for any third party’s benefit” any of Vital’s confidential infor- mation, including its product formulae and its marketing and sales information. The new hires did not remain at the company for l