trumps the harm to the employee.”)- The balance of the harms in this case favors granting the injunction. E. Synthes must also show that the public interest favors the issuance of the injunction. “As a practical matter, if a plaintiff demonstrates both a likelihood of success on fhe merits and irreparable injury, it almost always will be the case that the public interest will favor the plaintiff. Nonetheless, district courts should award preliminary injunctive relief only upon weighing all four factors.” Am. Tel. and Tel. Co. v. Winback and Conserve Prog., Inc., 42 F.3d 1421, 1427 n.8 (3d Cir. 1994). Here, it is not clear that the public interest is implicated as the effects of this adjudication are largely limited to the private parties involved. See Cont’l Grp., 614 F.2d at 357 (<HOLDING>). However, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals
recognizing the public interest exception holding that the public interest factor was not implicated in a noncompete case because the specific action at issue would not help or harm the public and the public interest factor is generally considered within the confines of disputes involving governmental agencies or programs rather than in the adjudication of private controversies recognizing that public utilities affect the public interest in that they render essential public services to a large number of the general public holding that the doctrine of equitable estoppel does not apply fully against the government because the possibility of harm to a private party is often if not always grossly outweighed by the public interest in enforcement of congressionally mandated public policy holding that no liberty interest was implicated where the public reason for employees dismissal was that their services did not meet the expectations of the public employer