E.I. DuPont deNemours & Co. v. Christopher case brief summary
431 F.2d 1012 (1970)
CASE FACTS
DISCUSSION
The court denied defendants' motions, but granted plaintiff's motion to compel. On defendants' motion for interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C.S. § 1292(b) the court held that plaintiff had a valid cause of action to prohibit defendants from improperly discovering its trade secret. The court further concluded that aerial photography, from whatever altitude, was an improper method of discovering the trade secrets exposed during construction of plaintiff's plant. Accordingly, the decision of the trial court was affirmed, and the case remanded for proceedings on the merits.
CONCLUSION
The decision of the trial court that plaintiff company had stated a claim for the misappropriation of its trade secrets was affirmed, where aerial photography was considered an improper method of discovering trade secrets, and the case was remanded for proceedings on the merits. A petition for rehearing was denied.
Suggested Study Aids and Books
431 F.2d 1012 (1970)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Defendant photographers moved for
interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C.S. § 1292(b) of a
trial court's judgment, which held plaintiff company had stated a
claim upon which relief could be granted in an action for
misappropriation of trade secrets.CASE FACTS
- Defendant photographers were hired by an unknown third party to take aerial photographs of new construction at plaintiff company's plant.
- Plaintiff subsequently filed suit against defendants, and alleged defendants had wrongfully obtained photographs revealing plaintiff's trade secrets, which they then sold to the undisclosed third party.
- Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
- Plaintiff filed a motion to compel an answer, and defendants moved for summary judgment.
DISCUSSION
The court denied defendants' motions, but granted plaintiff's motion to compel. On defendants' motion for interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C.S. § 1292(b) the court held that plaintiff had a valid cause of action to prohibit defendants from improperly discovering its trade secret. The court further concluded that aerial photography, from whatever altitude, was an improper method of discovering the trade secrets exposed during construction of plaintiff's plant. Accordingly, the decision of the trial court was affirmed, and the case remanded for proceedings on the merits.
CONCLUSION
The decision of the trial court that plaintiff company had stated a claim for the misappropriation of its trade secrets was affirmed, where aerial photography was considered an improper method of discovering trade secrets, and the case was remanded for proceedings on the merits. A petition for rehearing was denied.
Suggested Study Aids and Books
Intriguing indeed
ReplyDelete