Rockwell Graphic Systems, Inc. v. DEV Industries, Inc.
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
925 F.2d 174 (1991)
- Written by Tom Syverson, JD
Facts
Rockwell Graphic Systems, Inc. (Rockwell) (plaintiff) and DEV Industries, Inc. (DEV) (defendant) were competing manufactures. When Rockwell needed parts, Rockwell sometimes purchased them from outside vendors. Rockwell provided vendors with a piece-part drawing that instructed the vendor on precisely how to manufacture the needed part. Rather than patent the drawings, Rockwell kept all piece-part drawings in a vault. Rockwell required in-house engineers and outside vendors to keep the drawings confidential. In 1975, Fleck (defendant) left Rockwell and became president of DEV. Rockwell fired an employee named Peloso when a security guard caught Peloso attempting to steal piece-part drawings. Peloso then went to work for DEV. Rockwell sued DEV and Fleck, alleging misappropriation of trade secrets and other claims. During discovery, Rockwell learned DEV possessed 100 of Rockwell’s confidential piece-part drawings. DEV claimed to have obtained Rockwell’s drawings lawfully. DEV also argued that Rockwell’s piece-part drawings were not protectable trade secrets, because Rockwell provided the drawings to numerous vendors and did not strictly control possession or copying of the drawings. The district court granted summary judgment to DEV, finding that Rockwell did not take reasonable steps to maintain the secrecy of the drawings.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Posner, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 804,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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.
