Omnitech International, Inc. v. Clorox Co.
29 U.S.P.Q. 2d (BNA) 1665, 11 F.3d 1316, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 1245 (1994)
Rule of Law:
Under Louisiana law, the misappropriation of a trade secret requires proof that the defendant used the confidential information to gain an unfair trade advantage, not merely that they reviewed it during acquisition negotiations; furthermore, the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices Act (LUTPA) requires evidence of fraud, deception, or unethical conduct, and does not apply to standard business dealings or failed acquisitions absent such intent.
Facts:
- Omnitech manufactured 'Dr. X', an aerosol insecticide, and sought a marketing partner to expand distribution.
- Clorox, interested in entering the insecticide market, signed a non-disclosure agreement and a letter of intent with Omnitech to evaluate a potential acquisition.
- Under these agreements, Clorox paid for a license to test market Dr. X and guaranteed a $2.5 million line of credit for Omnitech.
- Omnitech provided Clorox with confidential trade secrets, including formulas, production methods, and packaging data, to facilitate the evaluation.
- While evaluating Omnitech, Clorox independently bid on and successfully acquired the Shulton Division from American Cyanamid, which produced 'Combat' insecticides.
- Clorox representatives investigated whether they could integrate the Dr. X aerosol product with the Combat bait trap product line.
- Clorox ultimately decided not to purchase Omnitech or Dr. X, citing product weaknesses such as leaking cans and lack of stability data.
- Clorox did not utilize Omnitech's formulas or production methods in the Combat line, as Combat used bait traps and third-party manufactured aerosols distinct from Omnitech's technology.
Procedural Posture:
- Omnitech sued Clorox in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana for misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of contract, and unfair trade practices.
- Clorox counterclaimed for repayment of a promissory note.
- The District Court granted judgment as a matter of law (directed verdict) in favor of Clorox on the trade secrets, breach of contract, detrimental reliance, and fiduciary duty claims.
- The District Court denied Clorox's motion for judgment as a matter of law regarding the Unfair Trade Practices (LUTPA) claim and submitted it to the jury.
- The jury found Clorox liable for violating LUTPA and awarded Omnitech $3.5 million in damages.
- Omnitech appealed the directed verdicts against it, and Clorox cross-appealed the denial of its motion to dismiss the LUTPA claim.
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 commit trade secret misappropriation or unfair trade practices when it reviews a potential target's confidential information under a non-disclosure agreement but subsequently declines the purchase and acquires a competitor instead, without incorporating the specific confidential technical data into the new acquisition?
Opinions:
Majority - King
No, a company does not violate trade secret or unfair practice laws merely by evaluating a target's data and then buying a competitor. The Court affirmed the lower court's dismissal of the trade secret and contract claims and reversed the jury verdict regarding unfair trade practices. Regarding trade secrets, the Court found no evidence of 'use' or 'disclosure.' Clorox did not incorporate Omnitech’s formulas into the Combat products, nor did they disclose the secrets to third parties. The Court rejected the argument that becoming 'smarter about the market' constitutes misappropriation, noting that preventing an acquiring company from looking at other targets after reviewing one company's data would unreasonably restrict business. Regarding the Unfair Trade Practices (LUTPA) claim, the Court held that the statute forbids conduct that offends public policy or is immoral/unethical. Since the agreements gave Clorox a 'right of first refusal' but no obligation to buy, and there was no evidence of fraud or intent to injure Omnitech, Clorox's business decision to buy a competitor was a permissible exercise of free enterprise, not an unfair trade practice.
Analysis:
This decision significantly limits the scope of liability for companies engaged in due diligence for potential acquisitions. It clarifies that the mere access to confidential information during negotiations does not preclude a company from acquiring a competitor, provided the specific trade secrets are not 'used' to gain a competitive advantage or incorporated into the competitor's product. The court draws a bright line between using specific secret formulas (misappropriation) and general market education gained during due diligence (permissible). Furthermore, the ruling restricts the application of the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices Act, preventing it from being used as a catch-all remedy for disappointed parties in failed business negotiations where no actual fraud or unethical conduct occurred.
