## Facts

- Shatterproof Glass Corporation manufactured replacement curved (“wrap-around”) automobile windshields using glass-bending molds and related furnace processes.
- Guardian Glass Company, Inc. and Guardian Industries, Inc. competed in the same replacement-windshield market.
- Shatterproof claimed Guardian misappropriated 43 asserted trade secrets involving windshield-bending mold design and operation (e.g., hinges, pivots, support points) and related shop techniques.
- Shatterproof’s misappropriation theory relied on former Shatterproof employees who left for Guardian and allegedly carried process know-how with them.
- The former employees held modest, non-managerial positions; Shatterproof did not clearly inform them that particular techniques were confidential trade secrets or that disclosure was prohibited.
- Evidence indicated comparable mold and bending techniques were commonly known in the trade and familiar to experienced workers, and employee movement between competitors was routine.
- Guardian maintained it used publicly known methods, industry practice, and its own development, and lacked notice of any special confidentiality obligations binding the hired employees.
- The case was tried to the court in a bench trial on Shatterproof’s trade-secret misappropriation claim.

## Issues

1. Whether the 43 items identified by Shatterproof qualified as protectable trade secrets.
2. Whether Guardian acquired or used any protectable trade secrets through former Shatterproof employees.
3. Whether Shatterproof proved a confidential relationship or duty of secrecy sufficient to support trade-secret liability.

## Decision

- Judgment entered for Guardian; Shatterproof failed to prove misappropriation of trade secrets.
- The court found the claimed “secrets” were largely industry-standard, publicly known, or readily ascertainable through ordinary experience in the trade.
- The court concluded Shatterproof did not take reasonable steps to maintain secrecy or to place employees (or Guardian) on clear notice of confidentiality obligations.
- The court treated the departing employees’ knowledge as general skill and experience, not as wrongfully taken confidential information.

## Legal Principles

- Trade-secret protection requires information that is not generally known or readily ascertainable, provides competitive value from secrecy, and is subject to reasonable secrecy measures by the owner.
- Information that is common in an industry, or learned through ordinary work experience and generally known among skilled workers, is not a trade secret.
- Absent enforceable restrictions or proof of actual misappropriation of protected confidential information, employees may use general knowledge and skills gained at prior employment when working for a competitor.
- A plaintiff must identify alleged trade secrets with sufficient specificity and prove both their protectable secrecy and the defendant’s wrongful acquisition or use.

## Conclusion

The court rejected Shatterproof’s trade-secret claims because the asserted mold and process know-how lacked protectable secrecy and Shatterproof did not establish reasonable confidentiality safeguards or wrongful acquisition and use by Guardian.


Shatterproof Glass Corp. v. Guardian Glass Co., 322 F. Supp. 854 (E.D. Mich. 1970)