The Boeing Company v. Sierracin Corporation, et al
108 Wash. 2d 38, 738 P.2d 665 (1987)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A company's good faith assertion and protection of legitimate trade secrets does not constitute an unreasonable restraint of trade or an illegal attempt to monopolize under state antitrust laws. Contractual remedies for breach of confidentiality can exist separately from, and are not displaced by, tort claims under the Uniform Trade Secrets Act.
Facts:
- The Boeing Company developed unique and detailed engineering drawings for its 7/7/7 cockpit windows, which it considered proprietary trade secrets.
- Boeing required its suppliers, including Sierracin Corporation, to sign contracts with confidentiality clauses, agreeing not to use the drawings for any purpose other than manufacturing parts exclusively for Boeing.
- Sierracin was a supplier for Boeing and received the proprietary drawings and technical assistance under these contractual confidentiality terms.
- After Boeing ended its supplier relationship with Sierracin due to alleged late deliveries, Sierracin decided to manufacture and sell the 7/7/7 windows directly to the spare parts market.
- Sierracin used Boeing's proprietary drawings, which it had obtained as a supplier, to seek its own Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) authorization to sell the windows independently.
- A Boeing official warned Sierracin against using the proprietary data, but Sierracin ignored the warning and denied it was copying Boeing's drawings.
- Testimony conflicted on whether the window design could be successfully 'reverse engineered,' but Sierracin's own attempts to do so were rejected by the FAA.
Procedural Posture:
- The Boeing Company sued Sierracin Corporation in a state trial court for misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of contract, and breach of a confidential relationship.
- Sierracin filed a counterclaim against Boeing, alleging that Boeing's actions to protect its data violated Washington's antitrust laws.
- A jury at the trial court level returned a verdict in favor of Boeing on its trade secret claims and in favor of Sierracin on its antitrust counterclaim.
- The trial court entered judgment on the verdict, awarding damages to both parties, and granted a permanent injunction against Sierracin.
- Both Boeing and Sierracin appealed the trial court's judgment, and the Washington Supreme Court accepted a direct transfer of the entire case.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a company's good faith effort to protect its legitimate trade secrets, through contractual confidentiality clauses and enforcement actions, constitute an unreasonable restraint of trade or an illegal attempt to monopolize under state antitrust laws?
Opinions:
Majority - Dore, J.
No. A company's good faith effort to protect its legitimate trade secrets is not a violation of antitrust laws. The court reasoned that the Washington Uniform Trade Secrets Act (UTSA) displaces conflicting tort law but expressly preserves separate contractual liabilities, meaning Boeing's breach of contract and confidentiality claims were valid alongside its trade secret misappropriation claim. The court found Boeing's drawings were legitimate trade secrets because the information was not readily ascertainable and Boeing took reasonable steps to protect its secrecy, such as using confidentiality agreements and proprietary legends. Submitting drawings to the FAA or sharing them under a non-disclosure agreement does not destroy their secret status. Crucially, the court adopted the standard that to prove an antitrust violation based on the assertion of a trade secret, a plaintiff must show by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant asserted the trade secret in bad faith, knowing no secret actually existed. Because the jury found Boeing's trade secrets were legitimate, its actions to protect them—including confidentiality clauses and litigation—were motivated by valid business concerns and could not be considered a sham to restrain trade or an illegal attempt to monopolize. Sierracin also failed to prove it suffered a causal antitrust injury, as it had not taken substantial, legitimate steps to enter the market, but rather resorted to misappropriating Boeing's data.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the critical intersection between intellectual property rights and antitrust law, establishing that the good faith enforcement of valid trade secrets serves as a defense against claims of anti-competitive conduct. The decision reinforces the principle that businesses can use reasonable protective measures, such as confidentiality agreements with suppliers, without automatically violating antitrust statutes. By setting a high 'bad faith' standard for plaintiffs, the ruling protects companies from being penalized for legitimate efforts to safeguard their innovations and discourages competitors from using antitrust claims as a tool to gain access to proprietary information they could not develop themselves.
Unlock the full brief for The Boeing Company v. Sierracin Corporation, et al