Kewanee v. Bicron Corp.

416 U.S. 470 (1974)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

P is a leading manufacturer of a type of synthetic crystal that is useful in the detection of ionizing radiation. P commenced research into the growth of this type crystal and was able to produce one less than two inches in diameter. By 1966, as the result of expenditures in excess of $1 million, Harshaw was able to grow a 17-inch crystal, something no one else had done previously. P developed many processes, procedures, and manufacturing techniques in the purification of raw materials and the growth and encapsulation of the crystals which enabled it to accomplish this feat. P considers this information and processes to be trade secrets. Ds are former employees of P who formed or later joined D. While at P, the individuals executed, as a condition of employment, at least one agreement each, requiring them not to disclose confidential information or trade secrets obtained as employees of P. D was formed to compete with P in the production of the crystals, and in a very short period of time had grown a 17-inch crystal. P sued D seeking injunctive relief and damages for the misappropriation of trade secrets. The Court, applying Ohio trade secret law, granted a permanent injunction against the disclosure or use by respondents of 20 of the 40 claimed trade secrets until such time as the trade secrets had been released to the public, had otherwise generally become available to the public, or had been obtained by Ds from sources having the legal right to convey the information. The Court of Appeals reversed finding Ohio's trade secret law to be in conflict with the patent laws of the United States. It reasoned that Ohio could not grant monopoly protection to processes and manufacturing techniques that were appropriate subjects for consideration under 35 U. S. C. §101 for a federal patent but which had been in commercial use for over one year and so were no longer eligible for patent protection under 35 U. S. C. §102 (b). The Supreme Court granted certiorari.