Court Opinion

ID: 9772777
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 17:29:54.033785+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:48.437845
License: Public Domain

WALKER, Justice
(dissenting).
This is an even weaker case for injunc-tive relief after issuance of the patent than Hyde Corporation v. Huffines, Tex., 314 S.W.2d 763, because here respondents have no head start or other advantage over petitioners in the marketing of their respective products. Although respondents began manufacturing and leasing their fishing tool before the secret was published to the world, they have been required to pay petitioners all profits derived therefrom up to the grant of the patent. I would apply the rule of Conmar Products Corporation v. Universal Slide Fastener Co., 2 Cir., 172 F.2d 150, and affirm the judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals in so far as the permanent injunction is concerned.