Valco Cincinnati, Inc. v. N & D Machining Service, Inc.
Ohio Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtHolmes, J.
There are two issues presented upon appeal. The first is whether the trial court had sufficient evidence to support its findings that Valeo’s plans, materials, designs, processes, customer and pricing lists were all protected trade secrets. The second inquiry is whether the trial court abused its discretion by, in effect, permanently enjoining appellants from the manufacture of any valve components which might be interchanged or substituted for a Valeo part. For the following reasons, we affirm the courts below.
Initially, the legal nature of the term “trade secret” must be analyzed. Ohio’s…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Kewanee Oil Co. v. Bicron Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1974
- E. I. Du Pont De Nemours Powder Co. v. MaslandSupreme Court of the United States · 1917
- Water Management, Inc. v. StayanchiOhio Supreme Court · 1984
- Elcor Chemical Corp. v. Agri-Sul, Inc.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1973
- Kinney v. MathiasOhio Supreme Court · 1984
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by58 opinions
- Fred Siegel Co., L.P.A. v. Arter & HaddenOhio Supreme Court · 1999
- Kehoe Component Sales Inc. v. Best Lighting Products, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2015
- Niemi v. NHK Spring Co., Ltd.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2008
- Levine v. BeckmanOhio Court of Appeals · 1988
- Elm City Cheese Co. v. FedericoSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1999
53 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.