Title: Hyde Corporation v. Huffines

State: texas

Issuer: Texas Supreme Court

Document:

314 S.W.2d 763 (1958) HYDE CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. James Donle HUFFINES, Respondent. No. A-6486. Supreme Court of Texas. March 12, 1958. Rehearing Denied June 4, 1958. Further Rehearing Denied July 16, 1958. *765 Christopher & Bailey, Ft. Worth, for petitioner. Thompson, Walker, Smith & Shannon, Paul C. Cook, Fort Worth, for respondent. NORVELL, Justice. This is a "trade secret" case in which the Court of Civil Appeals, after eliminating a recovery for attorneys' fees, has affirmed both a money judgment for $17,520 in favor of James Donle Huffines against Hyde Corporation and a perpetual decree of injunction restraining Hyde Corporation from manufacturing or selling any device made substantially in accordance with any feature of a garbage compressor described in Huffines' original application for a patent and the patent thereafter issued to him. Hyde Corporation v. Huffines, Tex. Civ.App., 303 S.W.2d 865. Petitioner, Hyde Corporation, presents the case here upon eighteen assignments of error; some of which are closely related and grouped for purposes of argument. It is unnecessary to discuss these assignments or points seriatim in order to dispose of the case. When the writ was granted, we had some doubt of the propriety as to the injunctive relief granted and one of the justices of the Court of Civil Appeals was of the opinion that the injunction was erroneously issued. However, upon further consideration, we have reached the conclusion that none of petitioner's assignments point out an error in the judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals. Such judgment will accordingly be affirmed. Petitioner's assignments in the main present three major contentions: (a) That the pleadings, the evidence and the jury's findings do not support a recovery for Huffines *766 upon the theory that Hyde Corporation had through violation of a confidential relationship, secured and wrongfully exploited Huffines' "trade secrets." (b) That Huffines' remedy, if any, lay in the federal courts as the suit is essentially one of patent infringement. (c) That the injunction was wrongfully issued, particularly in view of the fact that a patent had been issued to Huffines covering a part of the claims contended in his patent application. Certain other assignments raise contentions that various portions of the jury's findings are without support in the evidence, but we find that these matters were correctly decided in the lower appellate court and hence need not be discussed here. The statement of the Court of Civil Appeals is essentially correct. However, in view of petitioner's first major contention, we will enlarge thereon by quoting from the patent application made by Huffines and the licensing agreement executed by the contending parties. The respondent Huffines (plaintiff below) is the director of the Sanitation Department of the City of Wichita Falls, Texas. He constructed a mechanism which compressed the trash and garbage collected by the Sanitation Department so that the garbage trucks employed in hauling this refuse could carry substantially larger loads. He applied for a patent upon this device and in his application described it as a "Compressor Mechanism for Refuse Truck." It was stated in the application that: The application contained seventeen claims of novelty and invention and it conclusively appears that the mechanism was of a type that is subject to protection in equity as a trade secret. See, K & G Oil Tool and Service Co., Inc., v. G & G Fishing Tool Service, Tex., 314 S.W.2d 782. It appears that E. E. Maxson, Vice President of Hyde Corporation, became interested in the device through the offices of a friend of Huffines. Maxson originally talked with Huffines about manufacturing the device for Huffines. Eventually, however, it was agreed that Hyde Corporation should manufacture and sell the device and pay a royalty to Huffines. On January 8, 1954 a licensing agreement was executed which became effective three months later, that is, on April 8, 1954. *767 This agreement refers to Huffines as "Licensor" and to Hyde Corporation as "Licensee." It recites the fact that Licensor had invented certain new and useful improvements in a refuse compressor mechanism for vehicles and had made application for letters patent in the United States Patent Office, bearing Serial No. 400,236 and filing date of December 24, 1953 covering such device, and that Licensee was desirous of acquiring an exclusive license to make, use and sell the said invention in the territory of the United States of America and its possessions, and in all foreign countries. The contract then provided that: It conclusively appears that as a result of this agreement and the negotiations preceding its execution, Hyde Corporation gained full knowledge of the Huffines device not only from the application for patent but from scale models, blue prints, and actual construction of the device. On May 31, 1955, when the parties were in the second year of operations under the contract, Hyde Corporation repudiated the licensing agreement by giving the sixty-day notice provided for in the contract. However, according to the jury's findings, said defendant did not cease to manufacture the Huffines' device but on the contrary continued to produce the same substantially in accordance with the description of the mechanism contained in Huffines' patent application. Shortly before the trial was concluded a patent was received by Huffines and introduced in evidence. Some ten claims are listed in the patent instead of seventeen as set out in the original application. In the course of the prosecution of the patent application it appears that certain claims were cancelled by Huffines, others amended and additional ones added before the patent was finally issued. Against this factual background Hyde Corporation contends that it cannot be held in damages or restrained in equity from further manufacturing the mechanism because they did not gain knowledge of the device through fraud, deceit or any inequitable practice. Special Issues Nos. 1 and 2 and the jury's answers thereto bear upon this contention and are as follows: Petitioner contends that there is no evidence supporting the jury's answer to *769 Special Issue No. 1 and insists that if any issue of breach of confidence be raised by the evidence, the trial court should have submitted its requested special issue inquiring if the details, plans and specifications of Huffines' refuse compressor mechanism were disclosed by Huffines to Hyde Corporation or its representative in confidence. Petitioner's arguments as to the pleadings and evidence seem to run counter to the realities of the case as fixed by the written licensing agreement. It is true that there is no explicit written covenant contained in the contract which precludes petitioner from making use of information granted as a result of contract negotiations and disclosures by Huffines after the cancellation of the licensing agreement. It is also true that respondent's pleadings do not use the words "in confidence" by way of stating a conclusion. The picture presented by the pleadings and the evidence both undisputed and as interpreted by the jury is that of a licensee after contracting with an inventor (in good faith according to the jury's answer to Special Issue No. 2) for the use of an invention upon which an application for patent was pending, repudiating the licensing agreement and insisting upon utilizing the device despite the fact that he secured information which enabled him to manufacture the device through the licensing agreement and the negotiations relating thereto. To say that petitioner did not gain knowledge of the device in this manner is to deny the stated purpose of the licensing agreement. While in the briefs and oral argument some concern was expressed that the Court of Civil Appeals' opinion would permit unscrupulous claimants to delve into the pockets of business firms through spurious claims for compensation for the use of ideas, Matarese v. Moore-McCormack Lines, Inc., 2 Cir., 158 F.2d 631, 170 A.L.R. 440, that danger is hardly presented here. We are not called upon to consider at what period in the course of negotiations petitioner's actions may have ceased to be ethically permissible. We here have business relations culminating in a licensing agreement. The case seems to come squarely within the rule of the American Law Institute's Restatement of the Law that: The jury evidently believed that at the time the licensing agreement was entered into, Hyde Corporation was acting in good faith, but thereafter decided to use respondent's device without accounting to him. If so, it might be absolved under clause (a) of the rule but would be held liable under clause (b) thereof. In the present case, the parties occupied the position of licensor and licensee. They were in a sense coadventurers. There existed between them a confidential relationship as a matter of law and there was no need to submit these incidents of legal status to a jury for its determination. In commenting upon clause (b) of the rule above stated, it is said in the Restatement that: While there may be some distinction in the theory of recovery under clauses (a) and (b), that is whether in tort or contract, Aktiebolaget Bofors v. United States, 90 U.S.App.D.C. 92, 194 F.2d 145, that point is not involved here. In the area of confidential relationships between partners, employers and employees, licensors and licensees, and the like, the injured party is not required to rely upon an express agreement to hold the trade secret in confidence, Schreyer v. Casco Products Corp., 2 Cir., 190 F.2d 921, Smith v. Dravo Corporation, 7 Cir., 203 F.2d 369, nor should he be deprived of all relief because the offending person may have originally entered into the particular relationship unaffected by a then existing ulterior or improper motive. Petitioner's contention that respondent's remedy, if any, rests in the federal courts is founded upon the premise that this is essentially a patent infringement suit. After petitioner had entered into the licensing contract with respondent, it purchased Patent No. 2,487,412 issued to Valentine O. Balbi covering a compressing device and instituted suit against Huffines in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas asserting the priority of the Balbi patent over that issued to Huffines and contending that the latter patent was invalid for a number of reasons. We agree with the holding of the Court of Civil Appeals that this is not a "patent case", although "patent questions" may be involved herein. The gravamen of the present suit is breach of confidence. Trade secrets as distinguished from patents are subject to protection under the equitable jurisdiction of the state courts. In E. I. Du Pont de Nemours Powder Co. v. Masland, 244 U.S. 100, 37 S. Ct. 575, 576, 61 L. Ed. 1016, Mr. Justice Holmes stated the basis of the "trade secret" case, viz.: In the later case of Becher v. Contoure Laboratories, 279 U.S. 388, 49 S. Ct. 356, 357, 73 L. Ed. 752, Mr. Justice Holmes in distinguishing between the patent and trade secret suits said: The federal courts have original jurisdiction, absent a diversity of citizenship of causes of action, which assert "a claim of unfair competition when joined with a substantial and related claim under the copyright, patent or trademark laws." 28 U.S.C.A. § 1338(b). Huffines might have maintained this character of suit in the federal court in connection with a claimed infringement of his patent, but he was not required to do so as the way to relief in the state courts was open to him. Hyde Corporation has no claim of unfair competition based upon an alleged violation of confidence by Huffines which is in any way related to its claim under the Balbi patent. However that may be, it seems clear that the action taken by Hyde Corporation in the federal court could not operate to abate this proceeding. The distinction between the trade secret cases and those involving the validity of or infringement of patents is pointed up by the trade secret cases tried in the federal courts because of diversity of citizenships in which the law of the state of the forum is regarded as controlling under the rule of Erie Railroad Company v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 58 S. Ct. 817, 82 L. Ed. 1188, 114 A.L.R. 1487. See, Franke v. Wiltschek, 2 Cir., 209 F.2d 493, Smith v. Dravo Corporation, 7 Cir., 203 F.2d 369, 380. The latter case affords an example of one cause of action for wrongful appropriation of trade secrets, controlled by the law of Illinois and the law of Pennsylvania under the Illinois doctrine of conflict of laws, being joined with an action for patent infringement which is controlled by Acts of Congress. This was not a case of a claim of unfair competition joined with a related claim under the patent laws within the meaning of the federal statute. The Court characterized the trade secret cause of action as being entirely separate from that relating to a claimed patent infringement and repudiated the patent claim while recognizing the validity of the trade secret. The Court said: Nor is it a valid objection to the decree that it enjoins the use of a process or device that has been patented subsequent to the institution of this suit. Injunctive relief is not based upon the patent but the circumstance that the petitioner gained knowledge of such device at a time prior to its being patented through an abuse of a confidential relationship. See Comment Note "Right and remedies (independently of patent laws) of one who makes an invention or discovery, or conceives an idea or plan, as against one who utilizes it industrially or commercially, or discloses it, or threatens to do so." 170 A.L.R. 449 et seq. As above pointed out, a patent was issued upon certain claims of Huffines contained in his original application and amendments thereto. Despite this circumstance, the Court of Civil Appeals, with one justice dissenting, awarded the respondent Huffines a perpetual injunction against Hyde Corporation restraining it from making use of any of the claims or devices contained in the original application for patent or the patent itself. This holding is in direct conflict with the holding of the Texarkana Court of Civil Appeals in G & G Fishing Tools Service v. K & G Oil Tool & Service Co., 305 S.W.2d 637 (this day reversed sub nomine, K & G Oil Tool & Service Co. v. G & G Fishing Tools Service) wherein the Court followed Conmar Products Corporation v. Universal Slide Fastener Co., 2 Cir., 172 F.2d 150, 155, in which it was held that an injunction would not issue to protect "trade secrets" against one who had obtained them through a breach of confidence after such trade secrets had been made public through the grant of a patent. Chief Judge Learned Hand writing for the Circuit Court of Appeals said: Upon the granting of a patent upon any of the claims contained in the application, the file is no longer held in confidence by the patent office but the contents thereof become public property. Grant v. Raymond, 6 Pet. 218, 8 L. Ed. 376; Sandlin v. Johnson, 8 Cir., 141 F.2d 660; A. O. Smith Corp. v. Petroleum Iron Works Co. of Ohio, 6 Cir., 73 F.2d 531; 74 F.2d 934, Callman, The Law of Unfair Competition and Trademarks (2d Ed.) § 533, Patents. Consequently, the secrets disclosed by the application and its amendments are available to all the world and the trial court's decree makes an exception of the petitioner, Hyde Corporation. It is argued that such injunction is punitive as to petitioner rather than protective to respondent. If, as has been said in numerous cases, the equitable remedy of injunction to prevent one person from damaging another through an abuse of confidence in wrongfully appropriating trade secrets is a separate remedy and incident to a different right than that secured by a patent, it would seem that injunctive protection of the trade secret as against a licensee should not necessarily cease upon the issuance of a patent. The patent may not afford the same protection as the trade secret and while, with reference to the public generally, it may be said that the inventor has elected to surrender the protection of secrecy in return for a patent, the same can hardly be said in behalf of a licensee or other person who has wrongfully used information obtained through a breach of confidence. The record here indicates that at the time of trial petitioner was tooled up and producing the refuse compressor which was the result of respondent's inventive genius or mechanical skill. Undoubtedly if an injunction were lifted upon the issuance of a patent (which may or may not afford protection for all the trade secrets contained in the original application or amendments thereto), the licensee who had abused a confidence would thus obtain a marketing advantage or head start as compared to the patentee or any manufacturer or processor licensed by him after the issuance of the patent. An award of damages for patent infringement might well prove inadequate to fully protect the one whose confidence had been violated. The injunction should ordinarily operate as a corrective rather than a punitive measure, but when, through inadequacies in the processes and methods of the law, a choice must be made between the possible punitive operation of the writ and the failure to provide adequate protection of a recognized legal right, the latter course seems indicated and the undoubted tendency of the law has been to recognize and enforce higher standards of commercial morality in the business world.[1] In all cases, injunctive relief extending beyond the issuance of patent may not be essential to afford adequate relief to the injured party,[2] but the disclosure attendant upon the disclosure of the patent filed should not of itself preclude such relief.[3] *774 We are not unmindful of the fact that cogent arguments may be marshalled upon both sides of the existing controversy which has resulted in a conflict of decisions among our own Courts of Civil Appeals, as well as the federal Circuit Courts of Appeals. We are, however, of the opinion that the better doctrine as well as the one supported by the weight of American authority is the rule which permits the issuance of an injunction extending beyond the date of patent, even though there be no express covenant between the parties enjoining secrecy after the issuance of a patent. As this matter has not heretofore been passed upon by this Court we quote somewhat at length from the opinion of the Supreme Court of New Jersey in Adolph Gottscho, Inc. v. American Marking Corporation, 18 N.J. 467, 114 A.2d 438, 440, which contains numerous citations of authorities and to our minds represents the majority rule in this country and the one which should be followed by us: The New Jersey Court said: We are of the opinion that the Court of Civil Appeals was correct in affirming the trial court's injunction. The petitioner throughout this litigation has taken the position that no injunction should issue. It has not raised an alternative contention that an injunction, if issued, should be of limited duration, such as two or three years after the issuance of patent, rather than being perpetual in nature. No proper predicate by alternative pleadings and supporting evidence was laid for limiting the effect of the injunction to a certain period of time after the issuance of the patent. We think that when a plaintiff makes out a case for injunctive relief, the duty devolves upon the opposing party to show by competent evidence that an order of less duration than a permanent order will afford the injured party adequate protection. We make this statement in deference to a suggestion contained in an amicus curiæ brief filed herein and to point out that as an amicus curiæ does not occupy the position of an attorney for a party and is not vested with the management of the case, 2 Am.Jur. 682, Amicus Curiæ, § 7, the authority to and the propriety of issuing the suggested type of injunctive order is not before us. We find no assigned error in the trial court's manner of submitting the case to the jury which would necessitate a new trial, nor is a valid objection made to the method employed in assessing damages. Petitioner's assignments of error are overruled and the judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals is affirmed. While petitioner's motion for rehearing presents nothing that was not passed upon in the original opinion, there are certain matters which may be clarified by further statement. Petitioner seems to have some objection to the use of the term "trade secrets" in describing this case. The generally accepted definition of a "trade secret" is that contained in the Restatement of Torts. In Extrin Foods, Inc., v. Leighton, 202 Misc. 592, 115 N.Y.S.2d 429, 433, the Court said: To the authorities cited, we may add the following: Sun Dial Corporation v. Rideout, 29 N.J.Super. 361, 102 A.2d 90, affirmed 16 N.J. 252, 108 A.2d 442; B. F. Gladding & Co., Inc., v. Scientific Anglers, Inc., 6 Cir., 245 F.2d 722; Schreyer v. Casco Products Corp., D.C., 97 F. Supp. 159, reversed in part, 2 Cir., 190 F.2d 921; 87 C.J.S. Trade-Marks, Trade-Names, and Unfair Competition § 122, p. 413. *777 It appears from the record before us that Huffines had conceived and developed a device which he called a "Compressor Mechanism for Refuse Truck", and had applied for a patent thereon. The details of this device were unknown to Hyde Corporation until disclosed to its representatives during negotiations which culminated in a licensing agreement. Such details of construction were "trade secrets" belonging to Huffines, Smith v. Dravo Corp., 7 Cir., 203 F.2d 369, and were fully disclosed by his patent application, the details of which were made available to Hyde Corporation, together with blueprints, etc., long before the application was made public by the Patent Office when a patent was granted covering some of the claims contained in the original application. If these details as to construction were received by Hyde Corporation in confidence and that company later attempted to exploit them to Huffines' injury through a breach of confidence, an action lies, and it matters not whether the suit be designated as a "trade secret" case or as a suit for breach of confidence, which is a term commonly used by Huffines in describing his claim for relief. See Becher v. Contoure Laboratories, 279 U.S. 388, 49 S. Ct. 356, 73 L. Ed. 752. We have not held as a matter of law that the relationship of licensor and licensee in itself created a confidential relationship between the parties. It is undoubtedly true, as stated in one of the briefs filed herein, that, "The existence of a confidential relationship between a Licensor and Licensee is to be determined in each case [and] it does not follow that merely because the parties occupy a position of Licensor and Licensee a confidential relationship results as a matter of law." The trial judge was evidently of the opinion that the Hyde Corporation obtained its knowledge of the device involved through its dealings with Huffines while the parties were attempting to work out a contract for their mutual benefit. As a result of these negotiations, they entered into an agreeable arrangement which actually had the effect of putting the Hyde Corporation into the garbage disposal body business. "Viewing the picture as a whole," the conclusion was reached that a confidential relationship existed between the parties which entitled Huffines to relief by way of injunction. The picture as a whole encompasses the contract of the parties, the facts shown by the undisputed evidence as well as those established by the jury's verdict. The holding of the trial court on the point was affirmed by the Court of Civil Appeals and also by this Court upon authority of the decisions set forth in the original opinion. The all-important question in this litigation is whether the injunction should extend beyond the date of the issuance of patent. Upon this point there is an admitted conflict of authority. On rehearing, petitioners adopt some change of approach or emphasis in argument. The trial judge in the present case rendered an extremely detailed decree as compared with the one entered in K & G Oil Tool & Service Co., Inc., v. G & G Fishing Tool Service, Tex.Sup., 314 S.W.2d 782, which was attacked for indefiniteness of term. The descriptions of the claims in the patent application and the patent itself were incorporated in the decree, not as patent claims, but as descriptions of the features of the Huffines device which should be protected by injunction as so-called "trade secrets". While there is a suggestion that certain of these descriptions or claims may relate to matters well within the realm of public knowledge long before Huffines held any negotiations with a representative of Hyde Corporation, that is hardly the gravamen of the argument nor can it reasonably be supported by the grounds set forth in the motion for new trial filed in the trial court (even considering a "motion to amend and correct judgment" as a part of the motion for new trial), or the points urged in the Court of Civil Appeals, and the assignments contained in the original and amended applications for writ of error. *778 It is contended that upon the issuance of the patent, the claims contained in the application for the patent as distinguished from the claims of the patent itself became public property. This of course is true. The effect of the injunction is to deprive Hyde Corporation of the right to do that which every other person could do, e. g., make full use of the disclosures of the claims contained in the patent application which were not carried forward and protected by the patent. This situation was recognized in the original opinion. We again encounter the conflict between Conmar Products Corporation v. Universal Slide Fastner Co., 2 Cir., 172 F.2d 150 and Adolph Gottscho, Inc., v. American Marking Corporation, 18 N.J. 467, 114 A.2d 438, and similar cases. We have chosen to follow the rule of the New Jersey case. All trade secrets are not patentable and it seems that where one has gained knowledge of trade secrets in confidence, he should not be permitted to exploit the economic advantage gained thereby to the detriment of the opposing party simply because of the public disclosure of the claims contained in the patent application. One who has obtained prior knowledge of a device in confidence may well establish a manufacturing head start, so to speak. He may not and often does not stand on the basis of economic equality with competing manufacturers or the public at large at the date of the public disclosure of the claims in the patent application. For this reason relief by way of injunction should not arbitrarily be denied because the trade secrets contained in an application for a patent have been made public. Whether an injunction should issue and if so the particular type of decree that should be rendered must, to a large degree, depend upon the facts of each particular case. Schreyer v. Casco Products Corp., 2 Cir., 190 F.2d 921; Franke v. Wiltschek, 2 Cir., 209 F.2d 493, 495. In view of the dissenting opinion filed by Judge Jerome Frank in the latter case, we may comment on the holding thereof in some detail as the dissent raises a point similar to that suggested by amicus curiae in the case now before us. Franke v. Wiltschek was strictly a trade secrets case. The federal jurisdiction was based upon a diversity of citizenship of the parties. 28 U.S.C.A. § 1332, and the law of the State of New York was applicable. It was urged that the heart of plaintiffs' process (alleged to be a trade secret) "was revealed by an expired patent, and that the improvements thereon were unpatentable applications of mechanical skill." The Court of Appeals said that, The Court divided upon the propriety of awarding injunctive relief. The majority in an opinion by Judge Clark upheld the action of the district judge in granting a perpetual injunction. It was said: *780 While Judge Frank was of the opinion that an award of damages would do complete justice under the facts of the case, his argument raises the question of an injunction of limited duration. In the dissenting opinion reference was made to a differentiation as to remedies suggested in the Restatement of the Law of Torts. In support of such differentiation, Judge Frank submitted the following argument: By way of illustration of the Frank argument, it might be said that the "secrets" of the magnetic fishing tool involved in K & G Oil Tool & Service Co., Inc., v. G & G Fishing Tool Service, Tex., 314 S.W.2d 782 may be more readily ascertained from the publicized patent application or from a legitimate examination of the tool itself than could the "secrets" of the "Compressor Mechanism for Refuse Truck" here involved. If so, a fair competitive balance could be attained by a restraint of lesser duration in one case than in the other. Of course, as is indeed probable, the matter may be academic. With the loss of the trade advantage, the duration of the restraint may be wholly immaterial to a defendant. However that may be, as pointed out in the original opinion, the question of an injunction of limited duration is not before us. The issuance of a perpetual injunction is a common remedy afforded in trade secret cases. The authorities cited by the majority in Franke v. Wiltschek, cannot be lightly brushed aside. Nor are we disposed to destroy "the carefully built law of trade secrets", so that as a practical matter "such business assets (may) be left open to high-jacking from all sides." The trial judge upon proper findings has correctly determined that this is a case for injunctive relief. He has *781 ordered that the usual equitable order issue, e. g. the perpetual injunction. It would seem to follow that if an injunction of limited duration be substituted therefor as suggested by Judge Frank's argument, an abuse of discretion in issuing the perpetual injunction would have to be shown. Franke v. Wiltschek, 2 Cir., 209 F.2d 493, loc. cit. 499. No such showing was made in this case. As heretofore stated, the question of a limited duration injunction as opposed to a perpetual injunction is not raised by a party hereto. The matter is not before us. Petitioner's motion for rehearing is overruled. WALKER, Justice (dissenting). After further consideration, I have concluded that our decision in this case is unsound. Since the entire patent file becomes public property when the patent issues, the information contained therein can no longer constitute a trade secret. When the parties made their license agreement, respondent had filed his original patent application containing seventeen separate and distinct claims of novelty and invention. Thirteen of these claims were rejected by the Patent Office because of lack of invention or conflicts with prior patents and were cancelled by respondent in subsequent amendments to his application. While the patent as issued lists ten claims, these embody only four of those which were listed in the original application with some additions and refinements mentioned in additional claims asserted in the amended applications. The entire world now has access to the file and is free to manufacture and sell devices incorporating the features of the thirteen rejected and cancelled claims except as the same may be protected by other patents, but petitioner has been perpetually enjoined from doing so. The net result is that petitioner is prevented from ever hereafter doing that which everyone else is free to do. Since respondent can be adequately protected by damages or by an injunction of limited duration the trial court's judgment is clearly more punitive than remedial. This action cannot be justified by saying that a patent may not afford the same protection as a trade secret or that an award for damages for patent infringement may not fully protect respondent. Respondent testified that his patent application was made as broad as possible, because the Patent Office would "kick back" all he couldn't use. Although it was thus contemplated that some of the claims might be rejected and have no protection either from the patent or as trade secrets after the patent issued, the contract does not bind petitioner never to use any of the information disclosed to it. By applying for and accepting his patent, respondent elected to look to it for protection and broadcast his secrets to the world. He chose disclosure and patent protection in preference to a trade secret. The narrow question is whether under all these circumstances petitioner is under a legal duty never to use any of the information obtained from respondent, and in my opinion it is not. Our original opinion apparently recognizes that the trial court's judgment goes too far. It suggests that respondent might have been entitled only to an injunction of limited duration if petitioner had laid a proper predicate by alternative pleadings and supporting evidence showing that the same would afford respondent adequate protection. This does not comport with my idea of the burden resting upon the moving party in an equitable proceeding. It should not be said that he can simply establish his right to some sort of relief and then be granted much more than is actually required for his protection unless the defendant proves that he is entitled to less. While petitioner does not here argue that the injunction should have been limited to a period of years, it has vigorously contended from the beginning that the permanent *782 injunction should not have been granted and that the rule of Conmar Products Corporation v. Universal Slide Fastener Co., 2 Cir., 172 F.2d 150, should be applied in this case. It is my opinion that the burden was upon respondent to establish his right to the relief granted, i. e., a perpetual injunction. This he has not done. In a case where there are no pleadings or evidence justifying the issuance of an injunction of limited duration, we should follow the rule of the Conmar case and deny injunctive relief after the trade secrets have been made public through the issuance of a patent. See 36 Tex.Law. Rev. 384. I would reverse and render the judgments of the courts below in so far as petitioner has been permanently enjoined from manufacturing or selling any device embodying features described in the original patent application which were not carried forward and reserved in the patent. [1] For contrary view, see John T. Kipp, Note, 36 Texas Law Review 384. [2] See, Brown & Root, Inc. v. Jaques, Tex. Civ.App., 98 S.W.2d 257, no writ history, in which the Jaques saw was duplicated by defendant for its own use but not for sale to others. [3] See discussions in both majority and dissenting opinions in Franke v. Wiltschek, 2 Cir., 209 F.2d 493. In connection with this case, it should be noted that the federal court's jurisdiction was based upon a diversity of citizenship in which the law of the State of New York was involved. Conmar Products Corporation v. Universal Slide Fastener Co., 2 Cir., 172 F.2d 150 was apparently a combination patent infringement and unfair competition case. 28 U.S.C.A. § 1338.