These are two suits in equity brought to establish thp plaintiff's right to a trade secret in a laminating or combining process used in the manufacture of shoe uppers, to enjoin the defendаnts (who were his former employees) from using or disclosing this secret, and for an accounting for damages and profits. The cases were referred to a master by orders of reference which required him to ‘‘hear the parties, [and] find the facts, including all
The only question presented by these appeals is whether upon the findings of the master the plaintiff was entitled to the relief grаnted. Findings of the master include the following: During the period from 1918 to 1930 the plaintiff was engaged in the business of duplicating cloth for the glove making industry in New York. Duplicating — or “combining” as the process is called in the shoe trade — is the joining, through the medium of some adhesive substance, of two pieces of material, such as leather with leather or textile, or rubber with tеxtile, or textile with textile, so as to give strength or lining or backing to an exterior used in the manufacture of gloves, shoes and other articles. In the course of this business, the plaintiff' acquired experience and knowledge of the machinery, materials and processes necessary for combining materials successfully.
When, in 1941, leather became scarce, the plaintiff, who had moved to Massachusetts in the meantime, became intensively engaged in the development and perfection of a process for cоmbining shoe cloth. After considerable experimental work he built a machine “with which he went into actual and substantial production.” The machine “is of such simple mechanical principle and open construction that anyone possessed of average manual skill who had opportunity to work with it, and note its purpose and performanсe, could . . . build a duplicate.” The plaintiff’s machine can be set up ready for use at a cost of $350. Except for a motor which furnishes pressure for a spray gun, it is manually operated, requiring three men to a machine.
When the defendants entered the plaintiff’s employ there was no other machine “faintly resembling . . . [the plaintiff’s machine] in use anywhere.” There were, however, othеr combining machines employing the roller principle in joining the materials, but none used a sprayer for the application of the adhesive. Some of the other machines required heating attachments, and all of them were power driven and of heavy construction and cost not less than $3,000.
The defendants Plummer and Conti entered the plaintiff’s emрloy in 1943; the defendant Alcorn began working for the plaintiff in the early part of 1944. Before starting to work for the plaintiff the defendants Plummer and Alcorn had never seen a combining maсhine; the defendant Conti had worked in a rubber factory where he had seen a combining machine of the heavy power driven type, but he had never worked on one, and had never seen a machine that in any way resembled the plaintiff’s. When employing the defendants the plaintiff told them that “the machine was his idea, that nobody else had one, and that he didn’t want its operation broadcast to the world. No contract of secrecy was required or mentioned, but it was made plain to . . . [them] that the plaintiff had an idea, which he сonsidered of value, unprotected by patent, and that it might cause loss to him, if it got out to others.”
Since the plaintiff “got into full production” he has employed approximately twenty-five men of whom all but five are still in his employ. From time to time friends of the plaintiff’s employees and others came to the plaintiff’s premises where the machines werе in sight and in operation. But there was no evidence that any of these persons interested himself sufficiently to learn the details of the construction and operation of the machine so as to produce it.
The defendant Plummer left the plaintiff’s employ in April, 1945, and two months later went into the business of combining shoe cloth. For this purpose he built and used
The plaintiff on these facts was -entitled to the relief granted. The law is well settled that an employee upon terminating his employment may carry away and use the general skill or knowledge acquired during the course of the employment. American Stay Co. v. Delaney,
On the facts here the plaintiff had a trade secret in the process or, at least, in the machine which he had devised for laminating shoe cloth. The master found that until the defendants built a duplicate “there was none other faintly resembling it in use anywhere,” and that it was the plain
The owner of a trade secret, in contradistinction to the owner of a patent, has no such right in the idea as will enable him to exclude others from using it. Thus if one acquires the secret by honest means he may use it. Chadwick v. Covell,
Although the master found that “no contract of secrecy was required or mentioned,” this does not preclude relief. The duty of an employee not to disclose confidential. information which he has gained in the course of his emрloyment has been held to rest “upon the implied contract, growing out of the nature of the relation, that the employee will not after the termination of his service use infоrmation1 gained during the period of his employment to the detri
Interlocutory decrees affirmed.
Final decrees affirmed with costs.
Notes
It wаs agreed between the plaintiff and the defendants Conti and Alcorn “that if the plaintiff is damaged in law, his damages in fact are the sum of $2,000.” With respect to the defendant Plummer the master stated that no evidence of damage to the plaintiff was introduced.