Celeritas Technologies v. Rockwell International

150 F.3d 1354 (1998)

From our private database of 46,500+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Celeritas Technologies v. Rockwell International

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
150 F.3d 1354 (1998)

  • Written by Tammy Boggs, JD

Facts

In July 1993, Michael Dolan applied to patent an apparatus that increased the rate of data transmission over analog cellular telephone networks by de-emphasizing the data signal before presenting the signal to a cellular network. Dolan worked for Celeritas Technologies, Ltd. (Celeritas) (plaintiff). In September 1993, Celeritas met with Rockwell International (Rockwell) (defendant), a modem manufacturer, to demonstrate Celeritas’s proprietary de-emphasis technology for potential use in chipsets for Rockwell’s modems. The parties signed a nondisclosure agreement (NDA) to protect the subject matter of the meeting. Under the NDA, Rockwell was prohibited from disclosing or using any of Celeritas’s proprietary information except to evaluate a business arrangement between the two companies. The definition of proprietary information excluded any information that was already in the public domain or that came to be in the public domain through no fault of Rockwell. Under the NDA, Celeritas disclosed implementation details and techniques relating to its de-emphasis technology. In March 1994, AT&T independently began selling a modem that incorporated de-emphasis technology. The incorporation of de-emphasis technology was not obvious to the public; an engineer would need a spectrum analyzer to inspect the modem, most engineers did not have spectrum analyzers, and an engineer with a spectrum analyzer would have to know what to look for. Thereafter, Rockwell declined to license Celeritas’s proprietary technology. Instead, Rockwell instructed its engineers, who had learned of the technology under the NDA, to develop de-emphasis technology for Rockwell’s modems. In January 1995, Rockwell began shipping prototype modem chipsets with the de-emphasis technology. The same month, a patent on Dolan’s application was issued (the ’590 patent). Celeritas sued Rockwell for breach of the NDA, among other claims. Following a trial, a jury returned a verdict for Celeritas. Rockwell appealed, arguing that the de-emphasis technology disclosed to Rockwell had entered the public domain by the time Rockwell used it, either through the introduction of AT&T’s modem or the issuance of the ’590 patent.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Lourie, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 832,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,500 briefs - keyed to 994 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership