Where a corporation director, who knew a secret process of his company, became presi dent of another company and, with the aid of discharged employees of- his. former com pany, installed the secret -process tor such other company, the director, 'the company and the discharged employees were all en joined; Vulcan D. Co. v. Can Co., 72 N. J. Eq. 387, 67 Atl. 339, 12 L. R. A. (N. S.) 102, with a full note.
A secret process may be the subject of con fidential communication and of sale or li cense to use with restriction as to territory and prices ; Dr. Miles Medical Co. v. J. D. Parks & Sons Co., 220 U. S. 373, 31 Sup. Ct. 376, 55 L. Ed. 502, citing Fowle v. Park, 131 U. S. 88, 9 Sup. Ct. 658, 33 L. Ed. 67. An agreement in a sale of a secret process for manufactiiring a drug, which restricts the vendor from using or divulging it to others, or selling the article, is a reasonable restric tion, it being necessary for the vendee's pro tection, and the article not being of prime necessity for the public; Mallinckrodt C. Works v. Nemnich, 169 Mo. 388, 69 S. W. 355. So of a covenant of the vendor not to divulge it to any one else for five years; Tode v. Gross, 127 N. Y. 480, 28 N. E. 469, 13 L. R. A. 652, 24 Am. St. Rep. 475 ; and of a covenant not to use it or disclose it to oth ers or to sell the article made under it; L.
R. 9 Eq. 345; Vickery v. Welch, 19 Pick. (Mass.) 526, Assumpsit will lie against one who con tracted not to take advantage of the commu nication of a trade secret, and then obtained a patent on it; 3 Bos. & P. 630.
That cases involving a disclosure of trade secrets at the trial may be privately heard, see IN CAMERA. In Taylor Iron Co. v. Nich ols, 73 N. J. Eq. 684, 69 AU. 186, 24 L. R. A. (N. S.) 933, 133 Am. St. Rep. 753, a case was heard in camera and the evidence was then sealed. A disclosure of a secret necessarily made to the court at a trial does not pre clude an injunction; Stone v. Goss, 65 N. J. Eq. 756, 55 Atl. 736, 63 L. R. A. 344, 104 Am. Si. Rep. 794. See [1913] 2 Ch. 239.
The manufacturer of proprietary medi cines under secret process cannot contract with dealers in such medicines, wholeSale and retail, to control prices and fix the pric es which consumers shall pay; Dr. Miles Medical Co. v. J. D. Park & Sons Co., 220 U.
S. 373, 31 Sup. Ct. 376, 55 L. Ed. 502. See RESTRAINT OF TRADE.
A witness may refuse to give testimony or produce documents which would disclose trade secrets and where the evidence is ir relevant or otherwise inadmissible; Crocker Wheeler Co. v. Bullock, 134 Fed. 241.
A person conducting a private enquiry business does not impliedly warrant to his client that his servants will not disclose theit secrets after leaving his employ; and qucere as to disclosures made while in his employ, Easton v. Hitchcock [1912] 1 K. B. 535.
See Vulcan Detinning Co. v. American Can Co.., 73 N. J. Eq. 387, 67 Atl. 339, 12 L. It. A. (N. S.) 102; Stevens & Co. v. Stiles, 29 R. I. 399, 71 Atl. 802, 20 L. R. A. (N. S.) 933, 17 Ann. Cas. 140.