## Facts

- Data General Corporation manufactured and sold the Nova 1200 mini-computer after substantial research and development investment.
- When selling a Nova 1200, Data General provided customers, at no extra cost, engineers’/logic design drawings to aid customer-performed maintenance and reduce repair delays.
- The Nova 1200 was not patented, and the drawings were not copyrighted.
- Data General distributed the drawings with confidentiality measures, including (1) a non-disclosure clause in documentation accompanying the purchase agreement and (2) a legend on the drawings stating they contained proprietary information not to be used for manufacturing.
- Digital Computer Controls, Inc., a competitor, decided to produce a mini-computer similar to the Nova 1200.
- Digital purchased a Nova 1200 from one of Data General’s customers and obtained the engineers’ drawings from that customer before the machine was delivered.
- Digital used the drawings to develop its D-116 computer, alleged to be substantially similar to (or a copy of) the Nova 1200.
- The parties agreed Digital could lawfully reverse engineer the Nova 1200 by inspection and disassembly; the dispute concerned Digital’s use of the drawings.

## Issues

1. Whether the design drawings qualified as trade secrets or confidential information despite the absence of patent and copyright protection.
2. Whether Digital’s acquisition and use of the drawings obtained from a customer constituted misappropriation or improper use of confidential information.
3. Whether federal patent and antitrust policy barred enforcement of state trade-secret or contractual restrictions relating to unpatented and uncopyrighted materials.
4. Whether Data General satisfied the standards for a preliminary injunction, and whether Digital was entitled to summary judgment in light of disputed facts.

## Decision

- The Court of Chancery denied Data General’s motion for a preliminary injunction.
- The Court of Chancery denied Digital’s cross-motion for summary judgment, finding material factual disputes about trade-secret status and secrecy precautions.
- On cross-appeals, the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the denial of both motions.
- The Supreme Court rejected Digital’s categorical argument that federal patent and antitrust law foreclosed trade-secret or contract-based protection for the drawings.
- The courts indicated that any final injunctive remedy, if Data General ultimately prevailed, could be limited in duration to the time needed for lawful reverse engineering without use of the drawings.

## Legal Principles

- The absence of patent or copyright protection does not, by itself, preclude trade-secret or confidential-information protection for technical drawings.
- Reverse engineering of a lawfully acquired product is permissible; the alleged wrong is use of confidential plans obtained through a relationship or transaction subject to confidentiality limits.
- Whether information is a trade secret and whether secrecy measures were reasonable commonly present fact questions that may defeat summary judgment on an incomplete record.
- Federal patent policy does not automatically preempt state trade-secret claims or enforcement of contractual non-disclosure obligations concerning confidential technical information.
- When misappropriation is shown, injunctive relief may be tailored to eliminate the unfair head start, potentially limited to the period equivalent to lawful reverse engineering time.

## Conclusion

At the interlocutory stage, the Delaware courts refused to enjoin Digital’s competing product and also refused to end the case by summary judgment, holding that disputed facts existed on whether the drawings were protected confidential information and whether their use was improper, and that federal patent and antitrust policy did not categorically bar such claims.


Data Gen. Corp. v. Digital Comput. Controls, Inc., 297 A.2d 433 (Del. Ch. 1971), aff'd, 297 A.2d 437 (Del. 1972)