Rohm and Haas Co. v. Adco Chemical Co.
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
689 F.2d 424 (1982)

- Written by Rich Walter, JD
Facts
Rohm and Haas Company (plaintiff) devised the first commercially viable technique for producing latex-based paint. It took Rohm and Haas seven years to succeed in this venture, whereas other paint manufacturers had failed. Rohm and Haas referred to its technique as the Process and took several measures to protect the Process as a Rohm and Haas trade secret. Among these measures was the requirement that key Rohm and Haas employees, a group that included Joseph Harvey, sign an agreement not to disclose the Process to company outsiders. Harvey learned the Process by rote in the course of his work for Rohm and Haas. Harvey eventually left Rohm and Haas and went to work for a competitor, Adco Chemical Company (Adco) (defendant). Harvey quickly recreated the Process from memory and put it at Adco’s disposal. Adco relied on this input to develop its own line of latex paints. Rohm and Haas sued Adco for trade-secret misappropriation. At trial, Adco’s lead technical consultant testified that Harvey never seemed to understand his own recreated formula and that no reason existed to think that Adco could have derived its own successful formula from the existing technical literature. The federal district court dismissed Rohm and Haas’s suit. The court ruled that Rohm and Haas’s Process combined several technical elements generally known within the paint industry, and that therefore, the Process was not entitled to legal protection as a trade secret. Rohm and Haas appealed to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Hunter, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 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.