Centurion Industries, Inc. v. Warren Steurer and Associates
United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
665 F.2d 323 (1981)
Facts
Centurion Industries, Inc. (Centurion) (plaintiff) owned a patent for a type of “teaching device.” Cybernetic Systems, Inc. (Cybernetic) manufactured an electronic “teaching machine.” Alleging patent infringement, Centurion sued Warren Steurer and Associates (defendant) and another party (defendant) in a federal district court in California. The defendants were either both customers of Cybernetic or a customer and a manufacturer’s representative of Cybernetic. Centurion’s attempt to bring Cybernetic into the California suit failed because the court lacked personal jurisdiction over it. Centurion subpoenaed Cybernetic in New Mexico, requesting that is produce documents to be used in the California suit. Cybernetic objected on the ground that the software information sought by Centurion constituted trade secrets. Centurion filed a motion in a federal district court in New Mexico to compel Cybernetic’s production. There was evidence that experts for the defendants in the California action would be given access to Cybernetic’s software information in order to rebut Centurion’s claim of infringement. A magistrate judge granted Centurion’s motion but also issued a protective order limiting access to and use of the disclosed materials. The district court upheld the magistrate’s order. Cybernetic appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Seymour, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 711,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 44,600 briefs, keyed to 983 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.
