416 U.S. 470 (1974)
Harshaw Chemical Co., an unincorporated division of petitioner Kewanee Oil Co., commenced research in 1949 into the growth of synthetic crystals useful in the detection of ionizing radiation and was able to produce one less than two inches in diameter.1 By 1966, as the result of expenditures in excess of one million dollars, Harshaw was able to grow a seventeen-inch crystal, something no one else had done previously.2 Harshaw had developed many processes, procedures, and manufacturing techniques in the purification of raw materials and the growth and encapsulation of the crystals which enabled it to accomplish this feat.3 Some of these processes Harshaw considers to be trade secrets.4
The individual respondents are former employees of Harshaw who formed or later joined respondent Bicron.5 While at Harshaw the individual respondents executed, as a condition of employment, at least one agreement each, requiring them not to disclose confidential information or trade secrets obtained as employees of Harshaw.6 Bicron was formed in August 1969 to compete with Harshaw in the production of the crystals, and by April 1970 had grown a seventeen-inch crystal.7
Petitioner brought this diversity action in United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio seeking injunctive relief and damages for the misappropriation of trade secrets.8 The District Court, applying Ohio trade secret law, granted a permanent injunction against the disclosure or use by respondents of twenty of the forty claimed trade secrets until such time as the trade secrets had been released to the public, had otherwise generally become available to the public, or had been obtained by respondents from sources having the legal right to convey the information.9
The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that the findings of fact by the District Court were not clearly erroneous and that the District Court properly applied Ohio law relating to trade secrets.10 Nevertheless, the Court of Appeals reversed the District Court, finding Ohio's trade secret law to be in conflict with the patent laws of the United States.11 The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a question on which there is a conflict in the courts of appeals: whether state trade secret protection is preempted by operation of the federal patent law.12
Whether state trade secret protection is preempted by operation of the federal patent law?13
State trade secret law is not preempted by federal patent law unless it stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment of the full purposes and objectives of Congress in the patent laws, which include encouraging invention through limited exclusivity in exchange for disclosure, placing nonpatentable subject matter in the public domain, and preventing removal of public domain material by state action.14
No. The Ohio trade secret law applied by the District Court to Harshaw's processes, procedures, and manufacturing techniques for growing seventeen-inch crystals does not conflict with patent objectives.15 Trade secret protection encourages invention in areas patent law does not reach, including nonpatentable or doubtfully patentable discoveries such as Harshaw's processes for crystal growth.16 The law does not remove anything from the public domain because a trade secret by definition has not been placed there.17 It does not deter patent applications for clearly patentable inventions because the protection is far weaker than a patent, and the risk of inventors forgoing patents is remote indeed.18
Ohio's trade secret law is not preempted by federal patent law.19
Related opinions on this issue
Justice Marshall concurred in the result.20 He noted that state trade secret law provides substantial protection superior in duration to the seventeen-year patent monopoly.21 This creates a disincentive to enter the patent system in some instances.22
This case may illustrate such an instance.23 However, Congress has demonstrated awareness of trade secret systems without disapproval.24 Congress has even provided explicit federal protection to trade secrets in some contexts.25
Therefore, there is neither actual conflict nor evidence of a design to preempt the field.26
Joined by Justice Brennan
Justice Douglas dissented.27 He argued that the decision conflicts with Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Stiffel Co. and Compco Corp. v. Day-Brite Lighting, Inc.28
Harshaw's unpatented processes received perpetual injunctive protection under state law.29
Federal patent policy requires that articles not covered by a valid patent remain in the public domain subject to free competition.30
An injunction barring use serves as a monopoly enforceable by specific performance.31 An injunction barring disclosure does service for the protection accorded valid patents and is therefore pre-empted.32
Whether the States are forbidden to act at all in the area of protection of the kinds of intellectual property which may make up the subject matter of trade secrets?33
No. Just as Goldstein v. California permitted states to protect performances fixed on records as writings, states may regulate discoveries.36 States may protect trade secrets consisting of Harshaw's formulas, patterns, devices, or compilations of information used in business that give a competitive advantage.37 The only limitation is avoidance of conflict with federal operation.38
States are not forbidden to act in protecting trade secret subject matter.39
Whether the trade secret law of Ohio is void under the Supremacy Clause?40
State law is void under the Supremacy Clause only if it stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress in the patent laws.41 The patent laws promote progress by offering limited exclusivity for disclosure.42 They ensure public domain material remains free.43 Trade secret law protects items which would not be proper subjects for consideration for patent protection under 35 U. S. C. § 101.44
No. Ohio trade secret law as applied to the twenty protected processes does not clash with patent objectives of disclosure or public domain status.45 The law protects only secret information obtained under confidence or by improper means.46 It encourages invention where patents are unavailable.47 It imposes no substantial risk that holders of clearly patentable inventions will forgo patents.48 The processes were appropriated by former Harshaw employees for Bicron's competing seventeen-inch crystal production.49
Ohio's trade secret law is not void under the Supremacy Clause.50