E.I. Du Pont De Nemours Powder Company et al. v. Masland et al.
244 U.S. 100 (1917)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A court may enjoin a defendant from disclosing a plaintiff's alleged trade secrets to experts during litigation, because the legal duty arises from the defendant's confidential relationship with the plaintiff, which exists independently of whether the secret constitutes a property right. The trial judge retains the discretion to determine if, when, and under what precautions any disclosure necessary for a defense may be made.
Facts:
- Walter E. Masland was a former employee of E.I. du Pont de Nemours Powder Co. (Du Pont).
- During his employment, Masland acquired knowledge of Du Pont's processes for manufacturing artificial leather, which Du Pont claimed were trade secrets.
- After leaving Du Pont, Masland announced his intention to manufacture artificial leather himself.
- Masland asserted that he did not intend to use any of Du Pont's confidential information and claimed that many of the alleged secret processes were already well known in the industry.
- To prepare his legal defense against Du Pont's claims, Masland proposed to hire experts and disclose the alleged secret processes to them.
Procedural Posture:
- E.I. du Pont de Nemours Powder Co. filed a bill in U.S. District Court seeking to enjoin Walter E. Masland from disclosing its alleged trade secrets.
- The District Court initially refused to issue a preliminary injunction.
- After Masland indicated his intent to disclose the processes to defense experts, the District Court issued a preliminary injunction preventing disclosure to anyone other than defendant's counsel.
- The District Court then denied Masland's motion to dissolve that injunction.
- Masland (appellant) appealed to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which reversed the District Court's order.
- Du Pont (petitioner) was then granted a writ of certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court.
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 preliminary injunction that prohibits a defendant in a trade secret case from disclosing the alleged secrets to experts for the purpose of preparing a defense unconstitutionally deprive the defendant of the right to be heard, especially when the defendant disputes that the information is a trade secret?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Holmes
No. A preliminary injunction prohibiting disclosure to experts does not unconstitutionally deprive the defendant of the right to be heard. The starting point for the analysis is not the defendant's property rights or due process, but the fact that the defendant acquired the knowledge through a confidential relationship with the plaintiff. The law's primary obligation is to prevent the fraudulent abuse of that trust, regardless of whether the secret is ultimately proven to be a valuable property right. The trial judge retains full discretion to determine whether, to whom, and under what precautions the secret should be revealed if it becomes necessary for the preparation of a defense.
Analysis:
This decision establishes that the foundation of a trade secret claim can be the breach of a confidential relationship, distinct from the property status of the secret itself. It affirmed the broad discretionary power of trial courts to issue protective orders to manage the disclosure of sensitive information during litigation. By prioritizing the protection of trust, the ruling created a crucial procedural safeguard, allowing plaintiffs to enforce their rights without the risk of their trade secrets being disseminated during the very process designed to protect them. This case cemented the role of the trial judge as a gatekeeper of confidential information in legal disputes.
Unlock the full brief for E.I. Du Pont De Nemours Powder Company et al. v. Masland et al.