ALI-ABA Topical Courses Trade Secrets From the ... - ALI CLE

78Operating Procedure 9.1. It is also well established, however,that we are not bound by dictum in an earlier panel opinion.Abdelfattah v. Dept. of Homeland §., 488 F.3d 178, 185 (3dCir. 2007) (citing Mariana v. Fisher, 338 F.3d 189, 201 (3dCir. 2003)).We conclude that the Victaulic panel’s discussion ofAir Products and the interplay between virtual impossibilityand the inevitable disclosure doctrine was dictum and doesnot bind us in the present case. That discussion was notnecessary to the panel’s jurisdictional holding that Victaulichad failed to request a preliminary injunction on its tradesecrets claim. On the contrary, the discussion occurred onlyin the context of a counterfactual hypothetical in which theVictaulic panel posited that, even if Victaulic had requested apreliminary injunction on its trade secrets claim, the Courtnevertheless would have had jurisdiction. While werecognize that “where a decision rests on two or moregrounds, none can be relegated to the category of obiterdictum,” Philadelphia Marine Trade Ass’n -Int’lLongshoremen’s Ass’n. Pension Fund v. Comm’r, 523 F.3d140, 147 n.5 (3d Cir. 2008) (quoting Woods v. InterstateRealty Co., 337 U.S. 535, 537, 69 S.Ct. 1235, 1237 (1949)),we do not consider the Victaulic decision on jurisdiction toWe decided Victaulic in 2007, and since that time so far as weare aware there has not been a “clear statement by thePennsylvania Supreme Court to the contrary or other persuasiveevidence of a change in Pennsylvania law.” See Smith, 917F.2d at 1343 (emphasis removed). Accordingly, the holdings ofthe Victaulic panel bind us in the present case.31