Wexler v. Greenberg
Pennsylvania Supreme Court
160 A.2d 430 (1960)

- Written by Kelli Lanski, JD
Facts
Alvin Greenberg (defendant), a chemist, worked for Irving Wexler (plaintiff) at Buckingham Wax Company. Greenberg’s role entailed reverse engineering sanitation and maintenance chemicals sold by Buckingham Wax’s competitors and making new and improved cleaning solutions for Buckingham Wax to sell. Greenberg also interviewed chemical salespeople about their products and prices to assist Greenberg’s development of new cleaning solutions. Greenberg did not sign an employment, confidentiality, or noncompete agreement in connection with his work at Buckingham Wax, nor did Greenberg and Irving reach any oral agreements on those topics. Greenberg left Buckingham Wax to work for Brite Products Co., one of Buckingham Wax’s customers. Brite bought all its cleaning solutions from Buckingham Wax and resold them under Brite’s label. After Greenberg joined, Brite purchased machinery and, under Greenberg’s supervision, began developing and making its own cleaning solutions. Wexler sued, seeking to enjoin Greenberg and Brite from using certain formulas that Wexler argued were Buckingham Wax’s trade secrets. The lower court granted Wexler’s injunction, finding that Greenberg did not develop the formulas he used at Brite upon his hiring there but instead carried over the knowledge he acquired while working for Buckingham Wax. Greenberg appealed, arguing that he created the formulas using his subjective knowledge, skills, and aptitude for chemistry.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Cohen, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 816,000 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.