Victaulic Company v. Joseph L. Tieman

PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 07-2088
VICTAULIC COMPANY,
v.
JOSEPH L. TIEMAN;
TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS, LP
(E.D.P.A. Civil No. 06-cv-05601)
JOSEPH L. TIEMAN;
TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS, LP
v.
VICTAULIC COMPANY
(E.D.P.A. Civil No. 07-cv-00512)
Victaulic Company,
Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civil Action No. 07-cv-00512)
District Judge: Honorable Stewart Dalzell
Argued July 11, 2007
Before: RENDELL, AMBRO and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges

-- 1 of 3 --

2
(Opinion filed August 23, 2007)
Oldrich Foucek, III, Esquire (Argued)
Kelly M. Smith, Esquire
Tallman, Hudders & Sorrentino
1611 Pond Road
The Paragon Centre, Suite 300
Allentown, PA 18104
Counsel for Appellant
Stephen G. Harvey, Esquire
Cara M. Kearney, Esquire
Pepper Hamilton
18th & Arch Streets
3000 Two Logan Square
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Edward L. Friedman, Esquire (Argued)
Scott K. Davidson, Esquire
Christopher Dove, Esquire
Locke, Liddell & Sapp
600 Travis Street
3400 JP Morgan Chase Tower
Houston, TX 77002
Counsel for Appellees
ORDER AMENDING PRECEDENTIAL OPINION
AMBRO, Circuit Judge
It is now ordered that the published Opinion in the above case filed August 23,
2007, be further amended as follows:
On page 10, first paragraph, line 5, change “argues” to “argue” so that the sentence
reads:
Tyco and Tieman argue that Victaulic asked for a preliminary injunction on
the basis of all of its claims, including the trade secrets claim that has not

-- 2 of 3 --

3
been dismissed.
On page 11, line 8, change “App. at A71” to “id. at A71” so that the sentence
reads:
This language is all but lifted from the covenant not to compete, see id. at
A71, which supports Victaulic’s claim that enforcement of the covenant
(and not preliminary relief on the trade secrets claim) was its only aim in
seeking preliminary injunctive relief.
On page 24, in the first line of footnote 7, add “the” before “District Court” so that
the sentence reads:
In the alternative, Victaulic argues that the District Court should have
attempted to “blue pencil” (i.e., amend) the covenant to make it reasonable.
By the Court,
/s/ Thomas L. Ambro, Circuit Judge
Dated: November 20, 2007

-- 3 of 3 --