Briefing cases.

This is an outline for briefing cases. The next page contains a brief of the Du Pont case according to this outline.

Heading.
The heading is title of the case. It includes the information necessary to find the case in the case reporters and in other reference material that may contain information about the case.

Background and facts.
Describe the events that led to the litigation and explain how the case got to the court that is now deciding it. Identify the plaintiff and the defendant. Include the facts that relate to the issues that the court must decide. If the case is an appeal, identify the appellant and the appellee. State what motions they made in the court below, the lower court's decisions, and the grounds for those decisions.

Issues.
State the questions of law that the court must decide to resolve the dispute that is before it.

Holding.
Summarize the court's decisions on the questions that were before it.

Reasoning.
Use your own words to summarize the court's reasons for its decisions.

Policy.
Describe the social policies or goals that the court said it wished to

Heading.
I.E. Du Pont de Nemours & Co,. Inc., v. Christopher
431 F.2d 1012 (5th Cir. 1970).

Background and facts.
The plaintiff, Du Pont, sued the defendants, the Christopher brothers, claiming that the defendants had wrongfully obtained photographs revealing the plaintiff's trade secrets, and that they sold the photographs to an undisclosed third party. The plaintiff asked for damages and temporary and permanent injunctions. The trial court denied defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state claim, and defendants took an interlocutory appeal.

Issues.
Under Texas law, is there a cause of action for discovery of a trade secret by any improper means?
Under Texas law, is aerial photography of plant construction an improper means of obtaining another's trade secret?

Holding.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court. It held that under Texas law, aerial photography of plant construction was an improper means of obtaining another's trade secret for which there would be a cause of action, and remanded the case to the trial court for proceedings on the merits.

Reasoning.
In Texas, previous trade secret cases had involved illegal conduct or breach of a confidential relationship. However, in Hyde v. Huffines the Texas Supreme Court adopted the rule in the Restatement of Torts that recognizes a cause of action for the discovery of a trade secret by any "improper means." Therefore, the Court of Appeals concluded that the Texas courts would not limit trade secret protection to cases involving illegal conduct or breach of a confidential relationship.
In Brown v. Fowler a Texas court said that a party could use a competitor's secret process if he discovers it by reverse engineering or by his own independent research, but he may not avoid the costs the discoverer expended by taking the secret without the discoverer's permission. Therefore, the Court of Appeals concluded that under Texas law, when the discoverer of a process does not reveal it voluntarily and takes reasonable precautions to maintain its secrecy, to obtain knowledge of the process without spending time and money to discover it independently is an "improper means"

Policy.
To encourage inventive efforts, we must limit the costs of protecting trade secrets. To require the plaintiff the put a roof over its unfinished plant to protect its secret process would be too great an expense.