Reference no: EM131473189

Question: Phillips manufactures "single-pole" tree stands-a device that allows hunters to sit perched in a tree to await deer or other game. A group of investors expressed interest in buying the venture, and purchase negotiations began. In the course of the process, Phillips sent the investors information about his company, including prospectuses and videotapes. Phillips also gave the investors a tour of the plant and showed them firsthand the manufacturing process. Although Phillips had never patented his tree stand, he knew that without knowledge of the manufacturing process, building the stand would be cost-prohibitive. During the course of the negotiations, the investors bought several samples of the stand. Although Phillips wanted to sell the company and tried to make several concessions in the purchase price, the investors were unable to obtain financing, and the deal fell through. Sometime later, a company founded by the investors began to manufacture nearly identical "single-pole" tree stands. Phillips sued for trade secret misappropriation, but the investors claimed that they had lawfully reverseengineered the tree stand. Which party should win and why? What type of remedy, if any, should the court award?