Hilemn Laboratories, Inc.

<bold>1. Trade Secrets — silvering solution — consent agreement</bold> <bold>— patent expired</bold> <block_quote> The trial court did not err by determining that plaintiffs' use of a certain silvering solution in making mirrors was a trade secrets case even though the patent for the substance already expired, because regardless of whether the substance is technically a trade secret, plaintiffs are bound by their agreement that they would treat it as one.</block_quote><page_number>Page 327</page_number> <bold>2. Trade Secrets — silvering solution — reversal of oral ruling in</bold> <bold>written order</bold> <block_quote> The trial court did not commit prejudicial error by reversing in a written order its earlier oral ruling that a certain silvering solution used to make mirrors was not a trade secret, because: (1) plaintiffs were not prevented from introducing evidence as a result of the order; and (2) the primary focus of plaintiffs' case at trial was to show that the use of the substance in silvering solutions was not a trade secret.</block_quote> <bold>3. Trade Secrets — silvering solution — violation of consent</bold> <bold>judgment — willfulness</bold> <block_quote> The trial court did not err by finding plaintiffs willfully violated a consent judgment based on plaintiffs' conduct of using a certain silvering solution to make mirrors, because: (1) a mistaken belief that the use of the chemical came under an exception does not negate the purposefulness or deliberateness of plaintiff individual's acts; and (2) plaintiffs may not be relieved of their duty to comply with a consent judgment's provisions based on their mistaken interpretation or finding the judgment difficult to interpret.</block_quote> <bold>4. Trade Secrets — silvering solution — appropriate relief</bold> <bold>under consent judgment</bold> <block_quote> The trial court did not err by determining that defendant's relief under a consent judgment, stating that a certain silvering so