Have you ever wondered why the prepackaged baked goods at grocery stores always look so perfect, but when you make the pastry at home, you’re always scraping half of the banana bread from the pan? If so, this is the opinion for you. The plaintiff makes “baking release agents” and was a leader in the industry. The defendant wanted to compete, so it lured two of the plaintiff’s employees away and used the plaintiff’s trade secrets to help the defendant develop a competing baking release agent. The plaintiff sued, and the District Court granted a preliminary injunction. The defendant appealed, and the Third Circuit reversed and remanded. The case hinged on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d), which mandates that every order granting a preliminary injunction set forth the reasons why an injunction is warranted, state its terms specifically, and articulate in reasonable detail the conduct it enjoins. The Third Circuit spent dozens of pages of the opinion pouring over the tedium of the baking agents and the potential trade secrets before holding that the District Court’s order did not contain sufficient specificity.