UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _____________

Nos. 20-3584, 21-1028, and 21-1029 _____________

MALLET AND COMPANY INC.

v. ADA LACAYO; RUSSELL T. BUNDY ASSOCIATES, INC. d/b/a Bundy Baking Solutions; SYNOVA LLC; WILLIAM CHICK BOWERS

Russell T. Bundy Associates, Inc. d/b/a Bundy Baking Solutions; Synova LLC, Appellants in No. 20-3584

William Chick Bowers, Appellant in No. 21-1028

Ada Lacayo, Appellant in No. 21-1029 _______________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (D.C. No. 2-19-cv-1409) District Judge: Hon. Cathy Bissoon _______________

Argued April 16, 2021

Before: JORDAN, GREENAWAY, JR., and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges.

(Filed: September 24, 2021) _______________ Laura C. Bunting Marla N. Presley [ARGUED] Jackson Lewis 1001 Liberty Avenue – Suite 1000 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Allison G. Folk Jackson Lewis 6100 Oak Tree Boulevard, Suite 400 Cleveland, OH 44131 Counsel for Mallet and Company Inc. Ada Lacayo 328 Michigan Avenue Lower Burrell, PA 15068 Pro Se

2 Ronald L. Hicks, Jr. [ARGUED] Carolyn B. McGee Porter Wright Morris & Arthur 6 PPG Place – Third Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Counsel for Russell T. Bundy Associates, Inc., d/b/a Bundy Baking Solutions; Synova LLC Nicholas J. Bell Kathleen J. Goldman Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney 501 Grant Street – Suite 200 Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Counsel for William Chick Bowers _______________

OPINION OF THE COURT _______________ JORDAN, Circuit Judge.

Behind the breads, cakes, and other treats on our grocery store shelves, there is a ferociously competitive market for baking supplies, and that is the setting for this trade secret and unfair competition case.

In 2019, Mallet and Company Inc. (“Mallet”) learned that Russell T. Bundy Associates, Inc., doing business as Bundy Baking Solutions (“Bundy”), was becoming its newest competitor in the sale of baking release agents. Release agents are lubricants that allow baked goods to readily separate from the containers in which they are made. Bundy was already well-known for other products it offered to the commercial

3 baking industry when it decided to launch a new subsidiary, Synova LLC (“Synova”), to sell baking release agents. Synova hired two of Mallet’s employees, both of whom had substantial access to Mallet’s proprietary information. Taking some of that information with them from Mallet to Synova, they helped Synova rapidly develop, market, and sell release agents to Mallet’s customers. Mallet sued, saying such progress would have taken years to accomplish but for the misappropriation of its trade secrets. Agreeing with Mallet, the District Court issued the preliminary injunction now challenged on appeal, restraining Bundy, Synova, and those employees (collectively, “the Defendants”) from competing with Mallet.

While we appreciate the challenges inherent in disputes involving trade secrets and requests for preliminary relief, the injunction at issue is flawed and must be vacated. For the reasons that follow, we will remand for further consideration of what, if any, equitable relief is warranted and what sum Mallet should be required to post in a bond as “security … proper to pay the costs and damages sustained by any party found to have been wrongfully enjoined or restrained.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(c). I. BACKGROUND

A. Factual Background

1. Mallet and the Defend