B. F. Goodrich Co. v. Wohlgemuth
Decision Date | 22 May 1963 |
Citation | 192 N.E.2d 99,117 Ohio App. 493 |
Parties | , 137 U.S.P.Q. 804, 24 O.O.2d 290 The B. F. GOODRICH CO., Appellant, v. Donald W. WOHLGEMUTH, Appellee. |
Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court
1. Where a person is employed as an engineer to work as one of a team consisting of engineers and scientists to perform experimental work and research for the purpose of devising, developing, or perfecting, a method of manufacturing highaltitude pressure suits safe and suitable for travel in space, such person, after the team of which he is a member has successfully accomplished the work for which the various members were employed, or has made progress toward its goal, cannot lawfully reveal to third persons his knowledge of trade secrets known to him by virtue of his employment. The nature of the employment impresses on the employee such a relationship of trust and confidence as estops him from revealing to outsiders those trade secrets which he alone, or in co-operation with fellow employees, has brought into being solely at the behest of and for the benefit of his employer.
2. Where an employee gains knowledge of his employer's trade secrets, in the creation and development of which he was employed, such employee may be enjoined from disclosing the secrets to competitors of the employer after termination of the employment.
3. Equitable intervention to enjoin a disclosure of trade secrets by a former employee, who was hired for the purpose of developing or assisting in the development of such secrets, is based upon the former employee's wrong in violating confidence; and equitable remedies may be invoked when there is revealed a present real threat of disclosure, although an actual disclosure is not shown.
John D. Wortman, R. G. Jeter, W. C. Becker, and H. S. Meyer, Akron, for appellant.
Buckingham, Doolittle & Burroughs, Akron, for appellee.
This is an appeal taken from a judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Summit County by The B. F. Goodrich Company for trial de novo here. We entertain the action on the pleadings and the evidence before the lower court.
The B. F. Goodrich Company, appellant, seeks a permanent injunction against Donald W. Wohlgemuth, a former employee, from doing any of the following things:
'a. From performing any work for any corporation, business employer or party other than plaintiff, relating to the design, manufacture and/or sale of high-altitude pressure suits, space suits and/or similar protective garments, hereinafter called 'products,' and
It appears from the record that Donald W. Wohlgemuth graduated from the University of Michigan in the year of 1954 as a bachelor of science in chemistry; soon thereafter he obtained employment with The B. F. Goodrich Company; following a short period of service in the United States army, he returned to the Goodrich Company in the year 1956, and was assigned to work in the pressure-space suit department; as his technical knowledge increased, he was appointed successively in this highly specialized department to the positions of materials engineer, product engineer, sales engineer, technical manager, and finally manager of the department.
In November, 1962, Wohlgemuth was offered a position of employment by the International Latex Corporation, of Dover, Delaware, which corporation operates in the pressure-space equipment field, and is a competitor in this field of operation with The B. F. Goodrich Company; the offer of employment by Latex to Wohlgemuth resulted in his resignation from Goodrich and his employment soon thereafter by Latex.
The B. F. Goodrich Company, as the record shows, has been in the high-altitude, full-pressure space suit business since the year 1934, and over the years it has acquired, through experiment and development of processes, a high degree of scientific knowledge and advanced technology required in the research, design, construction, and testing, of space suits. It may be concluded from the evidence, as stated by appellant, that
The International Latex Corporation (present employer of the litigant, Wohlgemuth), is a manufacturing company with about 6,000 employees, which first entered the pressure-space equipment field in the year 1948, or approximately fourteen years after the entry of Goodrich. It first developed a pressure breathing mask, and later a full-pressure helmet. In the spring of the year 1962, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration awarded a contract known as the Apollo (man-on-the-moon contract), for the development of a space vehicle. (Project Apollo, in general terms, is 'the first space project of the United States aimed at putting a man on the surface of the moon and bringing him back.') This contract was awarded to Hamilton Standard Division of the United Aircraft Corporation, with International Latex Corporation as subcontractor to develop the space suit.
Neither time nor space permits a discussion of the present development of the space suit, nor an analysis of the approximately 1600 parts from which it is created. Suffice it to say that Goodrich has produced, up to the present time, more than 2300 full-pressure space suits. Let it also be noted that each day, through research and development, the acquiring of advanced know-how and techniques, with attendant progressive changes in plans, costs and other aspects of information, the area of operation for the development of a space suit safe and suitable for future space travel is rapidly expanding and reaching new and more advanced scientific levels.
There is no doubt that Wohlgemuth was one of a few top executives and developers in this field of operation with the Goodrich Company, and that he had, and has, full knowledge of many of the secrets and confidential facts which have come into existence through not only his own work, but also that of his fellow scientists and engineers with whom he has been closely associated. In fact, he stated that he was (1) technically responsible 'for complete engineering of pressure suits and ancillary equipment, both the development and production phases'; (2) 'responsible for the co-ordination between development engineering and The B. F. Goodrich's research center's...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Standard Brands, Inc. v. Zumpe, Civ. A. No. 66-769.
...action by a court to prevent such wrong. Actual or threatened invasion of rights must be shown."41 In B. F. Goodrich Co. v. Wohlgemuth, 117 Ohio App. 493, 192 N.E.2d 99 (1963), Goodrich sought to enjoin Wohlgemuth from performing any work on high-altitude pressure suits for any of its compe......
-
Kewanee Oil Company v. Bicron Corporation 8212 187
...widely relied-upon definition of a trade secret found at Restatement of Torts § 757, comment b (1939). B. F. Goodrich Co. v. Wohlgemuth, 117 Ohio App. 493, 498, 192 N.E.2d 99, 104 (1963); W. R. Grace & Co. v. Hargadine, 392 F.2d 9, 14 (C.A.6 1968). According to the '(a) trade secret may con......
-
McGowan & Co. v. Bogan
...the new employer.’ ” Hydrofarm, Inc. v. Orendorff, 180 Ohio App.3d 339, 905 N.E.2d 658, 663 (2008) (quoting B.F. Goodrich v. Wohlgemuth, 117 Ohio App. 493, 192 N.E.2d 99, 105 (1963) ) (second alteration in original). Ohio courts, however, protect an employer against a former employee's pote......
-
LeJeune v. COIN ACCEPTORS
...E.I. duPont de Nemours & Co. v. American Potash & Chemical Corp., 200 A.2d 428 (Del.Ch.1964); B.F. Goodrich Co. v. Wohlgemuth, 117 Ohio App. 493, 192 N.E.2d 99 (1963);9 see also Weinstein at Since the Uniform Act's adoption and widespread recognition by the states, the most notable case inv......
-
Should a Trade Secrets Misappropriation Claim Lie in the Procrustean Antitrust Bed?
...See note 115 supra ...0306 N.Y. 172, 117 N.E.2d 237 (1954).'8' Id. at 176, 117 N.E.2d at 245. See also B.F. Goodrich Co. v.Wohlgemuth, 117 Ohio App. 493, 192 N.E.2d 99 (1963); SpaceAeroProds.Co. v. R.E. Darlingc«.238 Md. 93, 208 A.2d 74, motion for reargumentand opinion supplemented, 238 Md......
-
On Equipoise, Knowledge, and Speculation: a Unified Theory of Pleading Under the Defend Trade Secrets Act -- Jurisdiction, Identification, Misappropriation, and Inevitable Disclosure
...misuse trade secrets, manifested by words or conduct, where the evidence indicates imminent misuse."): B.F. Goodrich Co. v. Wohlgemuth, 192 N.E.2d 99, 104 (Ohio Ct. App. 1963) (enjoining trade secret misappropriation threatened by B.F. Goodrich employee Wohlgemuth, who when resigning said "......
-
Kewanee revisited: returning to first principles of intellectual property law to determine the issue of federal preemption.
...domain as did the state laws in Sears, Compco and Lear...." Id. (81.) Kewanee, 416 U.S. at 475, citing B.F. Goodrich Co. v. Wohlgemuth, 192 N.E.2d 99 (Ohio App. 1963) and Nat'l Tube Co. v. Eastern Tube Co., 70 N.E. 1127 (Ohio (82.) Kewanee, 416 U.S. at 475. (83.) Id. (84.) Id. at 476. These......
-
THE ROLE OF "COMMERCIAL MORALITY" IN TRADE SECRET DOCTRINE.
...(Or. 1962); Adolph Gottscho, Inc. v. Bell-Mark Corp., 191 A.2d 67, 73 (N.J. Super. Ct. Ch. Div. 1963); B.F. Goodrich Co. v. Wohlgemuth, 192 N.E.2d 99, 101 (Ohio Ct. App. 1963); Schulenburg v. Signatrol, Inc., 200 N.F..2d 615, 616 (III. App. Ct. 1964); Sperry Rand Corp. v. Rothlein, 241 F. S......