Phillips manufactured "single pole tree stands" – a device that allows hunters to sit perched in a tree to await deer or other g
ame. His stand has a unique device that allows hunters to climb the pole rather than the tree; it also locks to the tree for added safety. A group of investors expressed interest in buying the venture, and protracted purchase negotiations began. Phillips sent the investors information about his company, including prospectuses and videotapes. Phillips also gave the investors a tour of the plant and showed them firsthand the manufacturing process. Although Phillips had not patented his tree stand, without knowledge of the manufacturing process, building the stand would be cost-prohibitive; it would take years to replicate this process. Phillips did not require the investors to sign NDAs. During the course of the negotiations, the investors bought several samples of the stand. The investors were unable to obtain financing, and the deal fell through. Sometime later, a company founded by the investors began to manufacture nearly identical "single pole" tree stands. Phillips sued for trade secret misappropriation, but the investors claimed that they had lawfully reverse-engineered the tree stand. Has there been misappropriation?
Answer: The answer is No there has not been misappropriation
Explanation:
in this case, there has not been misappropriation because Phillips has not done the needful in the first instance. The two ground in which Phillips has not done the needful to protect his invention are these
1.Philip had not patented his tree stand,a patent right is a right or special privilege granted to an investor who had applied for it to protect such inventor intellectual work and to enable him benefit from the proceed of the invention for a given period of time.such a right confer monopoly on the patentee in the sense that, the patent so granted will enable the individual alone to use the design for a specific number of years no other individual or company will be allowed to use the design as long as the patent is in operation.
2.Philip did not require the investors to sign NDAs, which is known as non disclosure agreement which is an agreement signed between two individuals or companies in order to ensure that the information contained in the agreement do not get to the third parties. It is also used to ensure that the trade secret between two individuals or companies is protected from leaking out. Therefore based on these two grounds Philip has failed to do the needful to protect his invention and has created a loophole for himself which the investors had used to steal his invention and made it theirs. The case instituted against the investors by Philip cannot be proved beyond reasonable doubt by Philip in the court of law that the investors had steal his invention because he had failed to do the needful in the first instance to win the case in his favour.
