Sinclair v. Aquarius Electronics, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that \[n]ovelty and invention are not requisite for a trade secret as they are for patentability\ and explaining that \a trade secret in the broad sense consists of any unpatented idea which may be used for industrial and commercial purposes\
• \Trade secret law encourages invention in areas where patent law does not reach\
• “[A]ppellant’s claim that the inventor did 5 not utilize the device in [h]is own business is entirely immaterial . . . .”
• “Trade secret law encourages invention in areas where patent law does not reach”
• “[I]t has 17 been said that a trade secret may be a device or process which is clearly anticipated in the 18 prior art . . . [;] [n]ovelty and invention are not requisite for a trade secret as they are for 19 patentability.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).