Sprague Electric Co. v. Cornell-Dubilier Electric Corp.
District Court, D. Delaware
The present suit is bottomed on several causes of action. An action is alleged under §§ 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act1 and §§ 4 and 16 of the Clayton Act;2 another action is alleged under the Declaratory Judgment Act.3 The controversy centers about a suit for unfair competition brought by Cornell-Dubilier against Sprague in the Massachusetts state court. Each of the parties here moves against the other for summary judgment.
Read the full summary
The present suit is bottomed on several causes of action. An action is alleged under §§ 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act1 and §§ 4 and 16 of the Clayton Act;2 another action is alleged under the Declaratory Judgment Act.3 The controversy centers about a suit for unfair competition brought by Cornell-Dubilier against Sprague in the Massachusetts state court. Each of the parties here moves against the other for summary judgment. The facts are taken from the complaint, the affidavits and depositions. Sprague, a competitor of Cornell-Dubi-lier, was sued in Massachusetts in May, 1941. The following year…
1Opinion of the Court
LEAHY, District Judge.
It is best to give each party’s version of the story:
1. Defendant’s. Before January, 1941, Brafman was employed by defendant as a foreman in its mica transmitting condenser department, where he learned many of the defendant’s formulae, secret processes and methods of manufacture of these condensers. At a time when plaintiff was not manufacturing these devices, he told defendant’s officers that plaintiff had offered him, at a considerable increase in salary, employment if he would take charge of the new condenser department which plaintiff intended to set up. Defendant…
2Cases cited22 opinions
- Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Electric Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1941
- Standard Oil Company of New Jersey, Appts. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1910
- Apex Hosiery Co. v. LeaderSupreme Court of the United States · 1940
- General Investment Co. v. Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railway Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1922
- United States v. American Tobacco Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1911
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Optronic Technologies, Inc. v. Ningbo Sunny Electronic Co., Ltd.District Court, N.D. California · 2019