Winston Research Corp. v. Minnesota Min. & Mfg. Co.
350 F.2d 134, 146 U.S.P.Q. 422 (1965)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a trade secret is misappropriated, the appropriate duration for an injunction is the period of time it would take a legitimate competitor to independently develop the same product after the public disclosure of the secret, thereby eliminating the 'head start' unjustly gained by the wrongdoer.
Facts:
- Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company (Mincom) spent four years developing a precision tape recorder with a low time-displacement error, a key technological advantage.
- Mincom's innovation involved eliminating the flywheel and reducing the mass of rotating parts to improve the machine's responsiveness.
- Wayne R. Johnson, the manager of Mincom's development program, and Charles S. Tobias, a former sales manager, left Mincom to form Winston Research Corporation.
- Mincom's employees, including Johnson, had signed express written agreements promising not to disclose confidential information acquired during their employment.
- Winston hired many of the key technicians who had worked on the Mincom machine.
- Using confidential information from Mincom, Winston developed a competing machine with the same performance characteristics in approximately fourteen months.
Procedural Posture:
- Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company (Mincom) sued Winston Research Corporation, Johnson, and Tobias in federal district court for misappropriation of trade secrets.
- Mincom requested damages and an injunction to prevent Winston from using the confidential information.
- The district court found that Winston had misappropriated Mincom's trade secrets and granted an injunction for a period of two years.
- The district court denied Mincom's request for monetary damages.
- Winston Research Corporation appealed the district court's decision to grant the injunction, and Mincom cross-appealed the two-year limitation on the injunction and the denial of damages to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth 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 limited-duration injunction, measured by the time it would take a competitor to reverse-engineer a product, provide an appropriate remedy for trade secret misappropriation when the secret will eventually be publicly disclosed?
Opinions:
Majority - Browning, Circuit Judge
Yes. A limited-duration injunction is an appropriate remedy for trade secret misappropriation as it balances the competing interests of protecting an employer's investment against fostering employee mobility and public competition. The court rejected both a permanent injunction, which would subvert the public interest in competition and employee mobility, and no injunction, which would unjustly enrich the faithless employee. Instead, the court affirmed a 'head start' injunction, tailored to last for the approximate period it would take a legitimate competitor to develop a successful machine after public disclosure. This remedy denies the wrongdoer any advantage from the breach of confidence, places the original employer in the position it would have occupied absent the breach, and imposes the minimum necessary restraint on competition and the use of employee skills.
Analysis:
This case is significant for establishing the influential 'head start' doctrine for calculating the duration of an injunction in trade secret cases. It provides a flexible and equitable middle ground between the extreme positions of a permanent injunction (the Shellmar rule) and no injunction after public disclosure (the Conmar rule). By tying the remedy's length to the time required for legitimate reverse engineering or independent development, the decision creates a practical framework that protects innovators without permanently stifling competition or employee mobility. This approach has become a widely accepted standard in trade secret law, shaping remedies to be corrective rather than punitive.
Unlock the full brief for Winston Research Corp. v. Minnesota Min. & Mfg. Co.