W.C. Phillips d/b/a Ambusher, Inc. v. Claude Frey
20 F.3d 623 (1994)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Disclosing a trade secret to a prospective purchaser during negotiations for the sale of a business creates an implied confidential relationship, which renders the prospective purchaser liable for trade secret misappropriation if they use the secret for their own purposes without authorization.
Facts:
- W.C. and Mary Phillips owned Ambusher, Inc., a company that manufactured and sold a unique single-pole deer stand known as the 'V-Lok.'
- The Phillipses had developed a cost-efficient manufacturing process over several years that gave their business a competitive advantage.
- In the summer of 1990, John Collins, on behalf of himself and associates Claude Frey and Gary Arnold, expressed interest in purchasing Ambusher, Inc. from the Phillipses.
- Believing them to be legitimate prospective purchasers, W.C. Phillips disclosed Ambusher's detailed manufacturing process to Collins, Frey, and Arnold through a custom-made videotape and two in-person tours of his facility.
- The parties negotiated a sale price, but after receiving the confidential information, Collins made a low counteroffer which Phillips rejected. Collins then informed Phillips that they were unable to purchase the business.
- It was later discovered that although Collins and his associates had sufficient personal assets, they never applied for a loan to finance the purchase of the business.
- By March 1991, Collins, Frey, and Arnold had formed a new company, Buck-Pro, Inc., and began manufacturing and selling a deer stand and accessories that were identical to the Phillipses' 'V-Lok' products.
Procedural Posture:
- W.C. Phillips and Mary Phillips sued John Collins, Claude Frey, and Gary Arnold in federal district court, alleging misappropriation of trade secrets.
- The defendants denied the allegations, claimed their product was the result of permissible reverse engineering, and filed a counterclaim for malicious prosecution.
- The case was tried before a jury.
- The jury found in favor of the Phillipses, awarding $56,500.13 in actual damages, $75,000 in punitive damages, and $7,000 in attorneys' fees.
- The trial court entered a judgment consistent with the jury's verdict and issued a permanent injunction preventing the defendants from manufacturing or selling the competing products.
- Frey and Arnold, as appellants, timely appealed the judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
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 prospective business purchaser misappropriate a trade secret when they use the seller's confidential manufacturing process, which was disclosed solely for the purpose of business evaluation during sales negotiations, to create and market an identical competing product?
Opinions:
Majority - Reynaldo G. Garza
Yes. A prospective purchaser who uses a seller's confidential manufacturing process to create a competing product has misappropriated a trade secret. Trade secret misappropriation occurs when a party acquires a secret through a breach of a confidential relationship and uses it without authorization. Here, the trade secret was not the product design, which could be reverse-engineered, but Ambusher's unique and cost-effective manufacturing process. A confidential relationship was implied when the Phillipses disclosed this process to the defendants solely for the purpose of allowing them to evaluate the business for a potential purchase. The defendants knew or should have known the information was a trade secret disclosed in confidence. Their subsequent use of this process to launch a competing product constituted a breach of that confidence, regardless of the absence of an express non-disclosure agreement.
Analysis:
This case solidifies the legal principle that a confidential relationship can be implied from the context of good-faith business negotiations, particularly in the sale of a company. The decision serves as a crucial protection for sellers who must disclose proprietary information during due diligence. It distinguishes between the permissible act of reverse-engineering a publicly available product and the impermissible act of using a confidential process learned through a breach of trust. For future cases, this precedent means that courts will look at the purpose of the disclosure; if it was made to facilitate a potential business deal, a duty of confidentiality is likely to attach, even without an express agreement.
