A specialty pharmaceutical company is seeking court intervention after alleging that a former senior employee shared confidential business information with a direct competitor in violation of employment agreements. The legal action highlights concerns over the protection of proprietary data and competitive practices within the industry.
InfuCare Rx, Inc. filed a verified complaint on March 10, 2026, in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against Kerri Sirinides and Clinical Specialty Infusions of Dallas, LLC doing business as CSI. The filing outlines claims that Sirinides, who resigned from InfuCare in February 2026 as National Director of Contracts, joined CSI—a direct competitor—immediately after her departure and allegedly brought sensitive company information to her new role.
According to the complaint, Sirinides had been employed by InfuCare since May 2020 in roles that provided her access to what the company describes as “well-guarded trade secret information.” She was promoted several times during her tenure, ultimately serving as National Director of Contracts. In this capacity, she managed critical relationships with commercial and government contacts and handled confidential details such as pricing strategies, contract terms, reimbursement structures, customer lists, and other proprietary business intelligence.
To protect its interests, InfuCare reports that it entered into multiple employment agreements with Sirinides containing restrictive covenants. These included non-competition clauses barring her from working for competitors for twelve months following employment termination; non-solicitation provisions prohibiting her from soliciting InfuCare’s employees or customers; and confidentiality obligations extending beyond her employment period. The agreements also stipulated that any breach would entitle InfuCare to seek injunctive relief without needing to prove actual damages or post bond.
The complaint alleges that upon resigning on February 6, 2026, Sirinides immediately accepted a position at CSI as Vice President of Operations—a role which InfuCare asserts involves responsibilities similar to those she held previously. InfuCare contends that this move violates the post-employment restrictions agreed upon by Sirinides due to substantial overlap between her prior duties at InfuCare and current work at CSI.
InfuCare further claims that both defendants refused requests to cease activities deemed violative of these covenants. On February 23, 2026, cease-and-desist letters were sent to both Sirinides and CSI outlining alleged breaches and requesting specific remedial actions—including assurances regarding compliance with contractual restrictions and preservation of related documents. According to the filing, responses from both parties denied wrongdoing and declined to comply with these requests.
The company argues that it faces immediate irreparable harm if its confidential information is used by competitors without authorization. It maintains that such trade secrets provide independent economic value due to their secrecy and are protected through significant investment in security measures and contractual safeguards with key employees.
Legal arguments presented include claims under federal law (the Defend Trade Secrets Act), state statutes in New Jersey and Texas concerning misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of contract regarding restrictive covenants, breach of duty of loyalty by Sirinides during her employment at InfuCare, tortious interference with contracts by CSI for allegedly inducing violations by hiring Sirinides into a competing role despite knowledge of existing restrictions, unjust enrichment resulting from use or disclosure of proprietary information for competitive advantage or personal gain by either defendant,
and interference with prospective economic advantage related to ongoing supplier negotiations or patient relationships.
As remedies, InfuCare seeks temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions prohibiting further use or retention of its trade secrets by either defendant; enforcement (and tolling) of post-employment restrictions until full compliance is established; orders barring Sirinides from working at CSI until final judgment; constructive trust over any improper earnings; actual damages including lost profits; exemplary damages where permitted; attorney’s fees; identification under oath by Sirinides regarding any disclosures made since leaving InfuCare;
and any additional relief deemed just by the court.
The attorneys representing InfuCare Rx are Ryan M. Magee, Mark M. Makhail,
and Kieran T. Ensor from McCarter & English LLP based in Newark,
New Jersey. The case is identified as Civil Action No.: 2:26-cv-02483.
Source: 226cv02483_Infucare_RX_Inc_v_Sirinides_Complaint_District_New_Jersey.pdf
