## Facts

- Lamb-Weston developed a proprietary process to manufacture “curlicue” french fries using a specialized helical blade and a water-feed system and treated the process as confidential.
- Lamb-Weston obtained patents on aspects of its blade system on May 22, 1990.
- McCain, a competitor, began developing a similar process and sought assistance from individuals connected to Lamb-Weston’s work.
- A former Lamb-Weston employee involved in the design allegedly provided McCain a copy of Lamb-Weston’s confidential patent application and later joined McCain.
- An independent contractor who fabricated blades for Lamb-Weston was retained by McCain to design a helical blade while still doing work for Lamb-Weston; McCain left key design and manufacturing choices to him despite knowing his continuing relationship with Lamb-Weston.
- After learning of the contractor’s work for McCain, Lamb-Weston required confidentiality and then exclusivity commitments from him and warned McCain about potential misuse of confidential information.
- Lamb-Weston contended McCain rapidly progressed to prototypes and then commercial production by late 1990 due to use of Lamb-Weston’s confidential process, giving McCain an unfair competitive head start.
- Lamb-Weston sued in federal court under Oregon’s Uniform Trade Secrets Act and obtained an eight-month preliminary injunction barring McCain from producing or selling products made using the disputed technology.

## Issues

1. Whether the record supported a finding that Lamb-Weston was likely to succeed on the merits of its Oregon trade secret misappropriation claim for purposes of preliminary injunctive relief.
2. Whether Lamb-Weston established irreparable harm and that the balance of hardships favored interim relief.
3. Whether a worldwide injunction and an eight-month term were overbroad or otherwise an abuse of discretion.
4. Whether the court improperly relied on circumstantial evidence and inferences to support findings of misappropriation at the preliminary-injunction stage.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed the preliminary injunction.
- The court held the magistrate judge did not abuse discretion in finding a likelihood of success on trade secret misappropriation and a sufficient showing of irreparable harm.
- The court upheld reliance on circumstantial evidence and reasonable inferences (including access to confidential information, rapid development, and the roles of the former employee and contractor).
- The court held the injunction’s worldwide scope and eight-month duration were appropriately tailored to eliminate any unfair head start and were no more burdensome than necessary to provide complete relief.

## Legal Principles

- A preliminary injunction may issue when the movant shows probable success on the merits and the possibility of irreparable harm, or raises serious questions with the balance of hardships tipping sharply in its favor; appellate review is for abuse of discretion.
- Trade secret misappropriation under Oregon’s UTSA may be proven by circumstantial evidence showing acquisition or use of confidential information with knowledge (or reason to know) it was obtained through a breach of a duty of confidentiality.
- In trade secret cases, injunctive relief may be calibrated to neutralize an unfair competitive “head start” attributable to misappropriation and should not exceed what is necessary to provide complete relief.
- Geographic breadth may extend beyond a single territory, including worldwide scope, when needed to prevent continued benefit from misappropriated information in markets where the parties compete.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit affirmed an eight-month, worldwide preliminary injunction under Oregon trade secret law, holding that circumstantial evidence supported likely misappropriation and that the injunction was properly limited to removing McCain’s unfair competitive head start without imposing unnecessary burdens.


Lamb-Weston, Inc. v. McCain Foods, Ltd., 941 F.2d 970 (9th Cir. 1991)