## Facts

- 3M’s Mincom Division developed a precision tape recorder/reproducer requiring highly accurate recording and reproduction of time intervals between coded signals, measured by “time-displacement error.”
- Mincom’s work addressed known engineering problems in servo-controlled tape speed regulation, including the performance limits created by flywheel inertia and resonances in moving parts.
- Wayne R. Johnson led Mincom’s research program; after leaving Mincom, he formed Winston Research Corp., which also hired Charles S. Tobias and other former Mincom technicians.
- About fourteen months after Johnson and Tobias left Mincom, Winston produced a competing recorder/reproducer achieving similarly low time-displacement error, a result Mincom had reached after about four years.
- 3M sued Winston, Johnson, and Tobias for misappropriation of trade secrets, seeking damages and an injunction.
- The district court found the defendants did not take Mincom’s general engineering approach (not protectable), but did improperly use Mincom’s specific design specifications, configurations, and relationships (protectable trade secrets).
- The district court enjoined defendants from using or disclosing Mincom’s trade secrets for two years and denied damages; both sides appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether a particular technical embodiment of a generally known engineering approach can qualify as a trade secret.
2. Whether the district court properly imposed a two-year injunction to remedy misappropriation, given expected public disclosure through marketing.
3. Whether the district court erred in denying monetary damages.
4. Whether any part of the injunction was overbroad by restricting defendants’ ability to use general skill and experience.
5. Whether defenses based on alleged shortcomings in 3M’s conduct or secrecy measures barred or limited relief.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed the finding that Mincom’s specific design specifications and interrelationships were protectable trade secrets, even if grounded in known principles.
- The court affirmed the finding of misappropriation by Winston and the former Mincom employees.
- The court upheld the two-year injunction as a proper equitable remedy aimed at eliminating defendants’ unfair development lead.
- The court held one portion of the injunction was overly broad and unenforceable and directed that it be narrowed.
- The court affirmed the denial of damages and rejected defenses that would bar equitable relief on the record presented.

## Legal Principles

- Trade-secret protection may cover a specific implementation, configuration, or set of technical relationships that embodies known principles; general ideas and approaches remain unprotectable.
- Misappropriation can be inferred from combined proof, including employees’ access to confidential technical detail and rapid replication of advanced performance beyond what independent development would predict.
- Injunctions in trade-secret cases must be tailored to prevent use or disclosure of specific secrets while leaving former employees free to use general knowledge, skill, and experience.
- A court may issue a time-limited “head-start” injunction measured by the period a legitimate competitor would need to develop the competing product after the secret becomes publicly knowable through lawful means.
- Damages may be denied where the record does not support a reliable monetary measure and equitable relief adequately addresses the unfair advantage.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit held that Mincom’s specific recorder/reproducer design details were trade secrets misappropriated by former employees and their new company, affirmed a two-year injunction calibrated to remove the defendants’ head start (with one provision narrowed for overbreadth), and upheld the denial of damages.


Winston Research Corp. v. Minn. Mining & Mfg. Co., 350 F.2d 134 (9th Cir. 1965)