Valco Cincinnati, Inc. v. N & D Machining Service, Inc.
Ohio Supreme Court
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partWright, J.
I concur with
the majority holding that sufficient evidence supported a finding of a misappropriation of trade secrets. I would limit this court’s holding, however, to the first paragraph of the syllabus. As Justice Holmes points out, injunctive relief is awarded in trade secret cases in order to place the injured party in the position he would have been in but for the misappropriation. In my view a perpetual, punitive injunction does not serve this laudable purpose. Further, this type of injunctive relief conflicts with the public interest in promoting competition and in allowing employees to…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- SI Handling Systems, Inc. v. HeisleyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1985
- Space Aero Products Co. v. R. E. Darling Co.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1965
- Conmar Products Corp. v. Universal Slide Fastener Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1949
- Anaconda Co. v. Metric Tool & Die Co.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1980
- K-2 Ski Co. v. Head Ski Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1974
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.