P had technology which precisely dispensed glue through an applicator head. It developed that technology through its engineering department. Over a 24-year period, P had developed materials, processes, dimensions and tolerances in order to get its products to work. P claimed that this information was a trade secret. Draginoff (D) was hired by P as a machinist and had no prior experience in P’s line of business. When he was promoted to production manager, D became familiar with all of P’s trade secrets and also that he was expected as a condition of employment to keep the information confidential. D asked P if it was ok for him to set up a machine shop in his brother’s garage to procure outside work. D was given the ok provided it did not interfere with D’s job. D was joined by a third brother and they incorporated N&D (D). None of the brothers had any prior experience in glue application. D contracted with P to make P parts and gained access to all the detailed drawings and a special jig to make applicator heads. The jig was never returned to P. D resigned from P and P then learned that D had been manufacturing glue equipment for P’s competitor using P’s secrets. The equipment was offered at lower pricing. The trial court found for P in that the information was a trade secret, that P had reasonably provided security to keep the secrets and then it permanently enjoined D from producing replacement P parts. This appeal resulted.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.