In VisionAIR, Inc. v. James, 167 N.C. App. 504, 606 S.E.2d 359 (2004), the Court affirmed the trial court's denial of the plaintiff's request for a preliminary injunction in plaintiff's trade secrets action. The Court stated: To plead misappropriation of trade secrets, "a plaintiff must identify a trade secret with sufficient particularity so as to enable a defendant to delineate that which he is accused of misappropriating and a court to determine whether misappropriation has or is threatened to occur." Analog Devices, Inc. v. Michalski, 157 N.C. App. 462, 468, 579 S.E.2d 449, 453 (2003); See also FMC Corp. v. Cyprus Foote Mineral Co., 899 F. Supp. 1477, 1484 (W.D.N.C. 1995) (preliminary injunction inappropriate where trade secret described only in general terms and where evidence of blatant misappropriation not shown). Id. at 510-11, 606 S.E.2d at 364. The Court then stated that a complaint that makes general allegations in sweeping and conclusory statements, without specifically identifying the trade secrets allegedly misappropriated, is "insufficient to state a claim for misappropriation of trade secrets." Id. at 511, 606 S.E.2d at 364.