Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Intellectual Property Law Blogs -> The Trade Secrets Vault

Intellectual Property Law

: The Trade Secrets Vault

Iowa - Possibility of reverse engineering was not dispositive of issue.

From our friends at Jurisnotes.com Cemen Tech, Inc. v. Three D Industries, LLC (Iowa 5/2/08) CTI sued Three, Longnecker, Jones, Luhrs, Yelton, Dorman, and others for misappropriation of trade secrets and related claims. The trial court granted Three's motion for summary judgment on virtually all of CTI's claims and the Supreme Court of Iowa affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. CTI is a manufacturer of mobile volumetric concrete mixers. Defendants Longnecker and Enos, through their business, Three, were interested in purchasing CTI. In 1999, Three sent a letter of intent to CTI requesting information regarding the business. CTI eventually provided Three with various documents, including strategic plans, financial statements, customer and supplier lists, and organizational charts. By 2001, it became clear that the purchase was not going to happen and CTI terminated Three's latest letter of intent, though discussions continued regarding the possible purchase of a portion of CTI business. In September 2001, Longnecker and Enos, through a third-party entity, submitted a letter of intent to CTI to purchase its "sludge" division. CTI apparently ignored this letter. By the end of 2001, the remaining employee defendants resigned from CTI and began working for Three developing volumetric concrete mixers. In 2002, Three exhibited a prototype cement mixer at a trade show closely resembling CTI's mixer.

Full post as published by The Trade Secrets Vault on May 09, 2008 (boomark / email).