For Your Data E.I. Dupont Denemours & Co. V. Christopher Representative Brief
April 26, 2020
Edit
E.I. DuPont deNemours & Co. v. Christopher illustration brief summary
431 F.2d 1012 (1970)
CASE FACTS
DISCUSSION
The courtroom denied defendants' motions, precisely granted plaintiff's motion to compel. On defendants' motion for interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C.S. § 1292(b) the courtroom held that plaintiff had a valid crusade of activity to prohibit defendants from improperly discovering its merchandise secret. The courtroom farther concluded that aerial photography, from whatever altitude, was an improper method of discovering the merchandise secrets exposed during structure of plaintiff's plant. Accordingly, the determination of the case courtroom was affirmed, as well as the illustration remanded for proceedings on the merits.
CONCLUSION
The determination of the case courtroom that plaintiff fellowship had stated a claim for the misappropriation of its merchandise secrets was affirmed, where aerial photography was considered an improper method of discovering merchandise secrets, as well as the illustration was remanded for proceedings on the merits. Influenza A virus subtype H5N1 petition for rehearing was denied.
Suggested Study Aids as well as Books
431 F.2d 1012 (1970)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Defendant photographers moved for interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C.S. § 1292(b) of a case court's judgment, which held plaintiff fellowship had stated a claim upon which relief could hold upward granted inwards an activity for misappropriation of merchandise secrets.CASE FACTS
- Defendant photographers were hired past times an unknown tertiary political party to accept aerial photographs of novel structure at plaintiff company's plant.
- Plaintiff after filed adjust against defendants, as well as alleged defendants had wrongfully obtained photographs revealing plaintiff's merchandise secrets, which they as well as thus sold to the undisclosed tertiary party.
- Defendants moved to displace for lack of jurisdiction as well as failure to state a claim upon which relief could hold upward granted.
- Plaintiff filed a motion to compel an answer, as well as defendants moved for summary judgment.
DISCUSSION
The courtroom denied defendants' motions, precisely granted plaintiff's motion to compel. On defendants' motion for interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C.S. § 1292(b) the courtroom held that plaintiff had a valid crusade of activity to prohibit defendants from improperly discovering its merchandise secret. The courtroom farther concluded that aerial photography, from whatever altitude, was an improper method of discovering the merchandise secrets exposed during structure of plaintiff's plant. Accordingly, the determination of the case courtroom was affirmed, as well as the illustration remanded for proceedings on the merits.
CONCLUSION
The determination of the case courtroom that plaintiff fellowship had stated a claim for the misappropriation of its merchandise secrets was affirmed, where aerial photography was considered an improper method of discovering merchandise secrets, as well as the illustration was remanded for proceedings on the merits. Influenza A virus subtype H5N1 petition for rehearing was denied.
Suggested Study Aids as well as Books