Schulenburg v. Signatrol, Inc., 38849

CourtSupreme Court of Illinois
Citation212 N.E.2d 865,33 Ill.2d 379
Docket NumberNo. 38849,38849
Parties, 147 U.S.P.Q. 167 Edward J. SCHULENBURG et al., Appellees, v. SIGNATROL, INC., et al., Appellants.
Decision Date28 September 1965

Gunn, Hickman & Kesler, Danville, and Peterson, Lowry, Rall, Barber & Ross, Chicago (Horace E. Gunn and William R. Kesler, Danville, and Owen Rall, Chicago, of counsel) for appellants.

Action, Baldwin, Bookwalter & Meyer, Danville (D. S. Baldwin, Danville, of counsel) for appellees.


This case involves the questions of trade secrets, unfair competition and injunctive relief. Plaintiff E-S Industries, Inc., successor to Time-O-Matic, manufactured and sold certain devices commonly called flashers and used primarily in the sign industry to cause lights to flash in such a manner as to animate the sign in various patterns or designs. The individual defendants were all former employees of said plaintiff who left to form their own competing company to manufacture and sell flashers. Plaintiffs filed suit against the defendants charging unfair competition by violation of a trade secret and requesting injunctive relief and damages. The trial court found the issues for the plaintiffs and issued an injunction restraining the defendants from the further manufacture and sale of competing flashers. The question of damages was postponed pending appeal. The appellate court affirmed (50 Ill.App.2d 402, 200 N.E.2d 615), and we granted leave to appeal.

In 1932 the plaintiff Edward J. Schulenburg, Sr., went to work for Sangamo Electric Company at Springfield, Illinois, as head of its flasher and timer division and held that position until 1945 when he purchased all of the assets of the flasher and timer division for the sum of $2,718.61. However, this amount is unimportant for since that time many blueprints, plans, specifications and drawings have been revised or added over the years by the plaintiff to perfect the flasher. In fact, there now are approximately 15,000 drawings of various types. He moved the operation to Danville, Illinois, under the name of Time-O-Matic Company. Defendant J. W. Sutphin had been an employee of Sangamo and when he returned from military service in 1945 he was employed by Time-O-Matic until January, 1959, when he and the plaintiff Schulenburg had a disagreement of policy concerning the operation of the company and he resigned. Signatrol, Inc. was organized by defendant Sutphin in March, 1959, to manufacture and sell flashers.

The defendant Bachman had been employed by Time-O-Matic since 1947, designing special equipment and assisting in sales work. Bachman left Time-O-Matic in the middle of March, 1959, after a disagreement with Schulenburg and joined the new corporation with Sutphin. The defendants McNamara and Walker had also been employees of Time-O-Matic for several years, McNamara as purchasing agent and Walker in the engineering department. Both of them asked Sutphin whether they could join his organization and in April, 1959, McNamara left Time-O-Matic and joined Signatrol as its purchasing agent and the following June, Walker also joined Signatrol.

The flashers produced by the plaintiffs are not patented nor is there any contention that the flasher itself or the method of assembling the flasher is a trade secret. Indeed, neither the plaintiffs nor defendants are true manufacturers, but actually but the motors, gears, side plates, switches and other parts which they assemble. Many of these parts are regular catalogue items furnished by suppliers and can be ordered by anyone. For that matter, anyone may legally duplicate the plaintiffs' product and go into business in competition with the plaintiffs in the manufacture and sale of electric flashers.

Plaintiffs allege, however, that their manufacturing 'know-how' is a trade secret which was imparted in confidence to defendants while employees and that such secret has been used by them in manufacturing a competing product. Defendants deny utilization by them of any such secret, in fact they deny its very existence. The trial and appellate courts held that the information, measurements, designs and material specifications contained on plaintiffs' blueprints or drawings and used in the manufacturing process qualified as a trade secret. They further found that defendants copied or memorized the information contained on these blueprints and drew on such knowledge in making up their own blueprints to be used in the manufacture of their product.

The trial judge in his memorandum opinion stated the issues involved in the following language:

'Signatrol, Inc. was organized by the foregoing defendants in March 1959, and by the latter part of June, 1959, were (sic) engaged in the production of electric flashers. Their product was to serve the same purpose as plaintiff's (sic) product, and was very similar to the product of the plaintiffs. However, similarity of products is not the controlling test which is determinative of the issues in this case, but is a factor to be considered. The question of infringement of patents is not involved. The real question is whether or not the individual defendants, or some of them, either traced, copied or reproduced Time-O-Matic plans, drawings, prints, designs, or carried away in their minds information as to the same so that they could reproduce them from their memory, provided further that such information was such as would be classed as a 'trade secret'.' The determinative question here is, how did the defendants go about reproducing the plaintiffs' flasher? Did they violate the confidence reposed by their employer by appropriating in an unlawful manner, the trade secrets of the plaintiffs?

The trial judge has correctly stated the issues involved, and, of course, there is another issue in this appeal, and that is whether the injunctive relief granted was appropriate.

The trial and the appellate courts concluded that the manufacturing 'know-how' contained in the plaintiffs' blueprints and drawings were trade secrets in view of the fact that they were kept confidential and that plaintiffs considered such as secret and attempted reasonably to keep it so. The memorandum opinion of the trial judge is forty pages in length, contains a detailed analysis of the evidence, makes certain findings hereinafter mentioned, and contains a very competent analysis of most of the cases in the United States concerning trade secrets and the method whereby the use of such trade secrets is acquired either legally or illegally. The abstract of evidence is 240 pages in length, and it would unduly extend this opinion to review in detail all the evidence. Several of the more salient findings of the trial court are:

'The Defendants insist that they made their drawings directly from the parts themselves by measuring, except when they drew them from their memory of Time-O-Matic's drawings. However, their expert witness, Dale Beck, a skilled engineer, looked with considerable askance (sic) upon the ability of any engineer to make accurate drawings of many of the delicate parts merely by measurements of the parts. This was particularly true as to those parts where the measurements were to a 10/1000 of an inch. And to come up with the identical measurement, tolerances, etc., as appear upon Time-O-Matic drawings were (sic) almost impossible.'

'There is a marked similarity between the drawings and sketches of Signatrol and those of Time-O-Matic, in other respects. The data is too often too alike to be just accidental. The placement of the data on the drawing is almost universally the same.'

'The likenesses and similarities occur so often, with such exactness, that it seems most unlikely that they should so occur, if, as claimed by defendants all their drawings were made from the torn down flasher parts, and without reference to any drawings or sketches or...

To continue reading

Request your trial
79 cases
  • USM Corp. v. Marson Fastener Corp.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • 29 Agosto 1979
    ......820, 88 S.Ct. 39, 19 L.Ed.2d 71 (1967); Future Plastics, Inc. v. Ware Shoal Plastics, Inc., 340 F.Supp. 1376, 1382 (D.S.C.1972); ...835, 89 S.Ct. 109, 21 L.Ed.2d 106 (1968). See Schulenburg v. Signatrol, Inc., 33 Ill.2d 379, 386-388, 212 N.E.2d 865 (1965), cert. ......
  • National Rejectors, Inc. v. Trieman, 50568
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 12 Septiembre 1966
    ......161, Head Ski Company, Inc. v. Kam Ski Company, Inc. (D.C.Md.), 158 F.Supp. 919, and Schulenburg v. Signatrol, Inc., 33 Ill.2d 379, 212 N.E.2d 865, National tells us that '(t)here is no reported ......
  • Agrimerica, Inc. v. Mathes, 1-89-0653
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • 22 Mayo 1990
    ...... Affirming its earlier decision in Schulenburg v. Signatrol, Inc. (1965), 33 Ill.2d 379, 212 N.E.2d 865, the supreme court held that the ......
  • Filter Dynamics Intern., Inc. v. Astron Battery, Inc., 73--198
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • 8 Mayo 1974
    ......v. Scott (1971), 49 Ill.2d 88, 273 N.E.2d 393; Schulenburg v. Signatrol, Inc. (1965), 33 Ill.2d 379, 212 N.E.2d 865; Revcor, Inc. v. Fame, Inc. (1967), 85 ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Kewanee revisited: returning to first principles of intellectual property law to determine the issue of federal preemption.
    • United States
    • Marquette Intellectual Property Law Review Vol. 12 No. 2, June 2008
    • 22 Junio 2008
    ...1304 (9th Cir. 1970); Water Servs., Inc. v. Tesco Chems., Inc., 410 F.2d 163, 172 (5th Cir.1969); and Schulenberg v. Signatrol, Inc., 212 N.E.2d 865, 868 (Ill. (38.) See, e.g., Painton & Co., Ltd. v. Bourns, Inc., 442 F.2d 216 (2d Cir. 1971) and Titelock Carpet Strip Co. v. Klasner, 142......
  • Curbing Aftermarket Monopolization
    • United States
    • Antitrust Bulletin No. 38-2, June 1993
    • 1 Junio 1993
    ...have met with mixed results.w Such129 R.M.MILGRIM,supra note 124, at § 2.05[2] and [3] and casesthere cited.130 Schulenberg v. Signatrol, 33 Ill. 2d 379, 212 N.E. 2d 865, 869-70(1965); Northern Petrochemical Company v. Tomlinson, 484 F.2d 1057,1061 (7th Cir. 1973); Kubik, Inc. v. Hull, 224 ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT