Dekar Industries, Inc. v. Bissett-Berman Corporation, 25117.
| Decision Date | 17 December 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 25117.,25117. |
| Citation | 434 F.2d 1304 |
| Parties | DEKAR INDUSTRIES, INC., a California corporation, A & E Plastik Pak Co., Inc., a California corporation, Joseph Dekel and Yehochai Schneider, Appellants, v. The BISSETT-BERMAN CORPORATION, a California corporation, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Meyer Berkowitz (argued), Beverly Hills, Cal., Edmond F. Shanahan, Los Angeles, Cal., for appellants.
Ellsworth R. Roston (argued), of Smyth, Roston & Pavitt, Charles H. Schwartz, Los Angeles, Cal., for appellee.
Before HAMLEY and KOELSCH, Circuit Judges, and PLUMMER,* District Judge.
Appeal from an order of the district court granting plaintiff (appellee herein) a preliminary injunction restraining defendants (appellants) from misusing plaintiff's alleged trade secrets pending determination of plaintiff's combined actions for unfair competition and patent infringement.1
Paragraph numbered "(4)" of the preliminary injunction describes plaintiff's trade secrets as methods and techniques of manufacture of electrolytic cells (coulometers) in quantity and with reliable characteristics. The methods and techniques in turn are described as those for preparing and plating the anodes of electrolytic cells to insure accurate deplating, treating the components to prevent the formation of dendrites in the cells, cleaning the cells of contaminants and stabilizing the cells after assembly. The specific trade secrets are not set forth.
Paragraphs numbered "(1)" through "(6)" enjoin defendants from shipping tooling, equipment, electrolytic cells or components anywhere in the world, from establishing manufacturing facilities or arranging financing to produce cells and from disclosing to other persons information concerning the construction of such cells. These acts are enjoined only insofar as they relate to the use of plaintiff's trade secrets. Any acts not involving such secrets are expressly permitted.
Defendants seek to have the order granting the preliminary injunction set aside on the grounds that plaintiff failed to identify any trade secrets, that the district court failed to comply with Rules of Civ.P. 52(a) and 65(d), that the district court abused its discretion in granting the preliminary injunction, and that defendants were denied due process in that the district court refused to require plaintiff to allege, or otherwise inform them, of its asserted trade secrets prior to the hearing.
The district court found not only that plaintiff possesses a qualified property right in the aforesaid secrets, but also found that the defendant Dekel and one Gene Frick, plaintiff's former employee, gained knowledge of the secrets from plaintiff in confidence; that all the defendants and Frick have entered into a conspiracy to wrongfully exploit these secrets and are presently engaged in carrying it out, all to plaintiff's irreparable economic injury.
These findings, in our estimation, fairly comport with all requirements of Rule 52(a); they provide "a clear understanding of the basis of the trial court's decision, and * * * enable us * * * to determine the ground on which the trial court reached its decision." Irish v. United States, 225 F.2d 3, 8 (9th Cir. 1955);2 in addition, they have support in the evidence and are not clearly erroneous.3
Nor does the record manifest any fact or circumstance that at this stage of the proceeding would constitute the award of preliminary injunctive relief an abuse of the district court's broad discretion. The design patent granted plaintiff for the cell itself affords no bar, because it does not cover mass production methods which are the secrets. Components for Research, Inc. v. Isolation Products, Inc., 241 Cal.App.2d 726, 730, 50 Cal.Rptr. 829 (1966). And although Frick himself may have developed some of the secrets, he gave plaintiff a written covenant not to use or disclose them, and this covenant also extends to those whom the court held were conspirators. Servo Corp. of America v. General Electric Co., 337 F.2d 716 (4th Cir. 1964), cert. denied, 383 U.S. 934, 86 S.Ct. 1061, 15 L.Ed.2d 851, reh. denied, 384 U.S. 914, 86 S.Ct. 1333, 16 L.Ed.2d 366; Winston Research Corp. v. Minn. Mining & Mfg. Co., 350 F.2d 134 (9th Cir. 1965). Nor do the Sears-Compco rules4 prevent equitable relief for the misuse of trade secrets by those who are bound by a confidential relationship or by an express or implied agreement to maintain secrecy. Servo Corp. of America v. General Electric Co., supra, 337 F. 2d at 724-725.5
The injunctive order adequately meets the requirements of Rule 65(d) that it be "specific in terms" and describe "in reasonable detail" the acts sought to be restrained. Defendants are fairly informed — by paragraph 4 of the order — that the techniques are those employed by plaintiff, with respect to particular components of the cells, at certain clearly specified stages in their manufacture and to achieve particular results. A similar form of description was used in the order upheld by this court in another trade secret case Winston Research Mfg. Corp., supra, and we deem the description here sufficient. Moreover, Frick, the skilled electro-chemist, and Dekel, the expert tool and die maker, admittedly played major roles in plaintiff's extensive...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kewanee Oil Company v. Bicron Corporation 8212 187
...410 F.2d 163 (CA5 1969); Winston Research Corp. v. Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co., 350 F.2d 134 (CA9 1965); Dekar Industries, Inc. v. Bissett-Berman Corp., 434 F.2d 1304 (CA9 1970), cert. denied, 402 U.S. 945, 91 S.Ct. 1621, 29 L.Ed.2d 113 4. Ohio Rev.Code Ann. § 1333.51(C) (Supp.1973) provide......
-
United States v. Reed
...to apply the doctrine whenever it believes that a suitable occasion has arisen. 39 See also Dekar Industries, Inc. v. Bissett-Berman Corp., 434 F.2d 1304, 1305-06 (9th Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 402 U.S. 495, 91 S.Ct. 1621, 29 L.Ed.2d 113 (1971); Atlantic Wool Combing Co. v. Norfolk Mills, I......
-
Kewanee Oil Company v. Bicron Corporation
...S.Ct. 1061, 15 L.Ed.2d 851 (1966), rehearing denied 384 U.S. 914, 86 S.Ct. 1333, 16 L.Ed.2d 366 (1966); Dekar Industries, Inc. v. Bissett-Berman Corp., 434 F.2d 1304 (9th Cir. 1970), cert. den. 402 U.S. 945, 91 S.Ct. 1621, 29 L.Ed.2d 113 (1971); Water Services, Inc. v. Tesco Chemicals, Inc.......
-
Motorola, Inc. v. Fairchild Camera and Instrument Corp.
...in every instance). Actual notice of items claimed to be trade secrets is such a principle. But see Dekar Ind., Inc. v. Bissett-Berman Corp., 434 F.2d 1304 (9th Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 402 U.S. 945, 91 S.Ct. 1621, 29 L.Ed.2d 113 4 The following patents with their issue dates are referred ......
-
Table of Cases
...34 Defiance Button Mach. Co. v. C&C Metal Prods. Corp., 759 F.2d 1053 (2d Cir. 1985), 84n43 Dekar Indus., Inc. v. Bissett-Berman Corp., 434 F.2d 1304 (9th Cir. 1970), 190n6 Delchamps, Inc. v. Borkin, 429 F.2d 417 (5th Cir. 1970), 285 Del Monte Fresh Produce, N.A. v. Chiquita Brands Int’l, I......
-
Kewanee revisited: returning to first principles of intellectual property law to determine the issue of federal preemption.
...1969), Winston Research Corp. v. Minn. Mining & Mfg. Co., 350 F.2d 134 (9th Cir. 1965), Dekar Indus., Inc. v. Bissett-Berman Corp., 434 F.2d 1304 (9th Cir. (5.) Kewanee Oil Co. v. Bicron Corp. et al., 478 F.2d 1074 (6th Cir. 1973), is referred to herein as Bicron to distinguish it from ......
-
Remedies for Trade Secret Misappropriation
...Guide to Protecting and Litigating Trade Secrets in the discretion of the district court.”); Dekar Indus., Inc. v. Bissett-Berman Corp., 434 F.2d 1304, 1305 (9th Cir. 1970) (trial court did not abuse its discretion in issuing a preliminary injunction enjoining defendant from using plaintiff......