Opinion ID: 323201
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Trade Secrets Claim.

Text: 20 Contending that the trial court erred in finding that none of its trade secrets were taken or used by defendants, plaintiff adduced evidence tending to paint a sordid picture of bribery and theft. It is accurately summarized in Judge King's Findings of Fact numbered 9, through the third sentence of Finding 13. 7 21 No choice of laws problem is apprehended. Both the law of New Jersey, 8 where the piracy is said to have occurred, and that of Florida, 9 where its fruits were claimed to have been utilized, afford protection of trade secrets. Recently, in University Computing Co. v. Lykes-Youngstown, 504 F.2d 518 (5th Cir. 1974), this court has articulated legal standards on protection of trade secrets. 10 It is reasonable to suppose that both New Jersey and Florida would apply these standards which were anticipated by the Supreme Court in Kewanee Oil Co. v. Bicron Corp., 416 U.S. 470, 94 S.Ct. 1879, 40 L.Ed.2d 315 (1974), in holding that federal patent supremacy does not preempt state trade secret protection. 22 At trial, defendants adopted the strategy of compelling the witness, William Gould, in his oral testimony, to identify one by one the components of appellant's extrusion line which he regarded as plaintiff's trade secrets, and thereafter to demonstrate that all were commonly known and used in the art. Judge King dealt seriatim with the claims thus developed in his Findings of Fact, numbered 24 through 55. 11 23 The thrust of plaintiff's argument here, and advanced in the court below, as recognized by Finding of Fact No. 48 12 is that the trade secret for which it claims protection and which it insists was misappropriated by defendants is its entire, integrated line comprised of its unique combination of steps and equipment, rather than the components thereof viewed in isolation. That the whole of a manufacturing process may be greater than the sum of its parts is not the paradox it seems at first blush. 24 However, the court explicitly found that 'Defendants extrusion line differs in every material detail from the line of Keystone . . .. In short, while there is a similarity in the general overall arrangement and processing, the two lines differ substantially in every material detail.' 13 The court further found that '. . . Keystone's line and process were not a trade secret, the relevant information being known to the art, and furthermore, it was not used by C & P.' 14 25 In assessing the substantiality of the foregoing ultimate fact findings, due consideration has been given to the personal observation and inspection by the trial judge of the extrusion line processes and techniques utilized by defendants. 26 In United States v. Stewart, 201 F.2d 135, 137 (5th Cir. 1953), this Court stated: 27 The observations made by the court from its physical inspection of the premises were for all purposes matters of evidence that were not and could not be set out in the record . . .. In such a case, it is not within this court's province to substitute its finding of fact for those of the trial court, particularly since they are supported by substantial evidence and are not clearly erroneous. 28 Thus, the judgment of the Court that defendants are not liable to plaintiff under plaintiff's claim of misappropriation of trade secrets is firmly grounded upon dispositive findings of fact, supported by substantial evidence in the record, which are not clearly erroneous, and accordingly it is affirmed. 29