Cemen Tech, Inc. v. Three D Industries, L.L.C.

Supreme Court of Iowa
2008 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 63, 753 N.W.2d 1, 2008 WL 2098038 (2008)

ELI5:

Sections

Rule of Law:

Information may qualify as a protectable trade secret even if it is theoretically discoverable through reverse engineering, provided that obtaining the information properly would be difficult or time-consuming and the owner takes reasonable steps to maintain secrecy.

Facts:

Cemen Tech, Inc. (CTI) manufactures mobile volumetric concrete mixers and maintains confidential business information including customer lists, financial statements, and manufacturing processes.
Defendants Longnecker and Enos expressed interest in purchasing CTI and signed confidentiality agreements to access CTI's internal documents for due diligence, but the purchase never materialized.
Instead of buying CTI, Longnecker and Enos formed a competitor, Three D Industries, and hired several CTI employees who had signed nondisclosure agreements.
These former CTI employees allegedly downloaded CTI files and used their knowledge to help Three D Industries develop a competing concrete mixer.
Three D Industries produced a fully functioning prototype mixer in less than six months, a timeline an expert engineer testified would be impossible without access to CTI's proprietary information.
CTI discovered that Three D's prototype closely resembled their own machine and that the defendants were marketing it using CTI's reputation.

Procedural Posture:

CTI filed a lawsuit in the Iowa district court against Three D Industries, Longnecker, Enos, former employees, and Yelton alleging breach of contract, misappropriation of trade secrets, unfair competition, and breach of fiduciary duty.
The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on all claims.
The district court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment on most of CTI's claims, effectively dismissing the case.
CTI appealed the district court's ruling to the Supreme Court of Iowa.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Did the district court err in granting summary judgment against Cemen Tech on its trade secret, unfair competition, and fiduciary duty claims where the defendants allegedly used confidential information to rapidly develop a competing product, despite the theoretical possibility of reverse engineering?

Opinions:

Majority - Justice Larson

Yes, in part. The Supreme Court of Iowa held that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding the trade secret, unfair competition, and fiduciary duty claims, necessitating a reversal of the summary judgment for most defendants. The Court reasoned that trade secret protection is not automatically negated simply because a product could be reverse-engineered. If the acquisition of information through proper means would be difficult, costly, or time-consuming, the owner retains protection against improper acquisition. Here, the expert testimony regarding the impossibly short development time for the defendants' prototype suggested they used CTI's proprietary data rather than legitimate reverse engineering to gain a 'head start.' Furthermore, the Court found that 'reverse palming off' (selling another's product as one's own) is a valid theory of unfair competition under notice pleading. Finally, the Court ruled that employees who sign confidentiality agreements may owe a fiduciary duty to their employer beyond simple attendance. However, the Court affirmed summary judgment regarding the contract claims due to superseding agreements and lack of personal liability, and affirmed the dismissal of trade secret claims against defendant Yelton, who was merely a customer with no duty of confidentiality.

Analysis:

This case significantly clarifies the relationship between 'reverse engineering' and trade secret protection in Iowa. It establishes that the theoretical possibility of legally discovering a secret does not shield a defendant who actually acquires it through improper means (such as breach of confidence). The court emphasizes the value of the 'temporal advantage' or head start gained by misappropriation. This decision warns employees and potential business buyers that information acquired under confidentiality agreements cannot be repurposed for competition simply because the product is sold publicly. It also broadens the scope of unfair competition to definitely include 'reverse palming off' without requiring specific pleading of that exact term.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Cemen Tech, Inc. v. Three D Industries, L.L.C. (2008)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"