Lexplug logoLexplug

E.I. DuPont deNemours & Co. v. Christopher

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
431 F.2d 1012, 400 U.S. 1024 (1971)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

The appropriation of a trade secret by means that are improper under the circumstances, such as aerial photography of a competitor's plant under construction, constitutes a tort, even if no trespass, illegal act, or breach of a confidential relationship has occurred.


Facts:

  • E. I. duPont deNemours & Company, Inc. (DuPont) developed a highly secret, unpatented process for producing methanol, which provided a significant competitive advantage.
  • DuPont took special precautions to safeguard the secrecy of this process.
  • The company began constructing a new plant in Beaumont, Texas, specifically designed for this secret methanol process.
  • During the construction phase, parts of the process were exposed to view from directly above, though not from the ground.
  • An unknown third party hired Rolfe and Gary Christopher, professional photographers, to take aerial photographs of the DuPont construction site.
  • On March 19, 1969, the Christophers flew over the plant and took sixteen photographs of the facility.
  • The Christophers later developed the photographs and delivered them to their undisclosed client.
  • When contacted by DuPont, the Christophers refused to reveal the identity of the person who had hired them.

Procedural Posture:

  • DuPont filed suit against the Christophers in federal trial court (U.S. District Court), alleging wrongful appropriation of trade secrets.
  • The Christophers responded with motions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
  • The Christophers also filed a motion for summary judgment.
  • The trial court denied all of the Christophers' motions.
  • The trial court granted DuPont's motion to compel the Christophers to disclose their client's identity.
  • The trial court certified its denial of the motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim for an interlocutory appeal, allowing the Christophers (appellants) to seek immediate review from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, with DuPont as the appellee.

Locked

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 the aerial photography of a competitor's manufacturing plant under construction to discover a trade secret constitute an 'improper means' of appropriation under Texas trade secret law, even if the flight itself is lawful and does not involve a physical trespass?


Opinions:

Majority - Goldberg, Circuit Judge

Yes. Aerial photography of a competitor's plant under construction to discover a trade secret constitutes an improper means of appropriation under Texas law. Texas has adopted the Restatement of Torts § 757, which imposes liability on one who discovers a trade secret by 'improper means.' This standard is not limited to acts involving trespass, breach of confidence, or other independent illegality. The court's reasoning is grounded in the principle of maintaining 'higher standards of commercial morality.' While competitors are free to discover secrets through proper means like reverse engineering or independent research, they may not circumvent these efforts by taking the secret from the discoverer who is exercising reasonable precautions. Requiring DuPont to build a temporary roof over its unfinished plant to prevent such espionage would impose an unreasonable and economically prohibitive burden. Therefore, the Christophers' actions, while not technically illegal in an aviation or trespass sense, were an improper means of obtaining DuPont's trade secret because they fell below the accepted standards of commercial ethics.



Analysis:

This landmark decision significantly broadened the scope of what constitutes 'improper means' in trade secret law. The court moved beyond a rigid requirement of an underlying illegal act (like trespass) and instead established a more flexible standard based on commercial morality and reasonableness. By focusing on the fairness of the competitive conduct, the ruling protects innovators from espionage that uses new technologies or methods that are not yet specifically outlawed. This case is crucial for establishing that a plaintiff need only take 'reasonable precautions' to protect a trade secret, not build an 'impenetrable fortress,' shifting some burden onto competitors to act ethically.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query E.I. DuPont deNemours & Co. v. Christopher (1971) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for E.I. DuPont deNemours & Co. v. Christopher