The Honor able T an ya W al t on Pr at t, Dis t ri c tJ udge f or the  So uthe rnDis t ri c tofI ndi ana , i s s i t t i ng by des i gna t i on.



## In the 

# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 11

- 1354 F AIL -S AFE , LLC , Plai nt i f f

-Appe l l ant, v. A. O. S MI T H C ORPO RA T I ON, D efend a nt-A pp ellee

.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the E astern Di stricto f Wisc onsin
. No . 2:0 8-cv-00 31 0-JPS

—J. P. S tadtmuel ler , Judge
.
A RG UE D D ECE MBE R 1, 2011

— D ECI DE D M AR CH 29, 2012

Befo re E A S T E RB R OO K, C hief Ju dg e, C UDAH Y, C ir cuit Judge, a nd P RAT T, D i s t r i ctJudg e .  C UDAH Y, Cir cu i tJudg e . T h is cas e is abou t w he th er a pl aint i ff ca n su st ain a tr ade se cr et o r unj us t enrich m en t cl ai m wh en thatpl ai nti fff ai l s t o ta ke any prot ecti ve meas ur es t o sa fe g ua r d i ts pr o pr i et ar y i nf o r m at i o n.2 N o. 11

- 1354 Bu si ness re l ati onshi ps do not a l w ays devel op und er for m u laic circ u m st an c es . B u t w h er e o n e c om p an y f ails to take an y p r o tect ive step s to shield its prop rietary in for m at ion, i t c an n otth en ex p ec t t h e la w to p ro te c t it wh e n th e r e l a t i o n s h i p s o u r s . F o r th i s r e a s o n, w e a ffi r m. T his case i nv olves tw o com p an ie s , F ail -Safe, LL C ( FS) and A .O. S m i th, Cor p. ( A OS) and thei r eff or ts to dev el o p a pump m o to r f o r po o l s uct i o n e nt r apment p reven tion tech nology. Pool su ction en trap m en t occu rs w hen the sucti on cre ate d by a pooldrain tr aps swim m er s. This probl em h as prom pted an i nd ustr y- w i de eff or t t o devel op drain entr apm ent r el eas e devi ces. FS m anufa cture s a nti

- entr apm ent devi ces f orar ti fi ci al po o l d r a i n s . AO S ma n u f a c t u r e s mo t o r s f o r p o o l a nd s pa pumps , a nd h a s a l s o b e e n de v e l o pi nga nt i

- e nt r a pm en t te ch no l o g y s i nc e l at e 20 00
. In Nov embe r 2 00 0, o ne o fAOS ’ s e ng i ne e r s , Wi l l i a m M eh l ho r n, a t t e nd e d a t r a de sh o w w he r e he fi r sts aw F S ’ s su ct i o n en trap m en t te ch

n o logy. A lso du ring this tim e, M ike M etzler, A O S’s m ar ket i ng dir ecto r, becam e aw ar e of FS’s p ro du cts thro ugh an adve rt isem ent in a t ra de m aga zi ne. Intri gued by FS’s Suct ion-Safe Pum p , he an d FS’s fou nd er, J o s e p h C o h e n, s o o n b e g a n i n i t i a l c o n v e r s a t i o n s abo ut e nt e r i ngi nt o a de vel o pme ntp r oj e c twh e r e b y AOS wou l d d e v e l o p a p u mp mo t o r f o r F S ’ s p o o l s u c t i o n e ntr apm ent pr eve nti on t echnol ogy . The e x act nature o f th es e ta l k s i s unc l ea r, b uti t i s undi spu te d tha t no f or m alag re em ent m ate ri al i zed, nordi d the par ti es disc uss co nfi denti al i ty. Coh ena nd M et zle r c o nt i nue d t o ha ve a s er i es o fc o nv e r s a t i o ns thr o ugh the f a l l o f 2 0 0 2
. I n No v e mbe r 20 02,N o. 11

- 1354 3 Coh enwro te a f o r m all et te r t o AOS ex pr es sing i nter esti n havi ng AO S devel op a pu m p m oto r f or F S wi thv ar i o us s pec ific f ea tu r es . The l et te r di d no t m en t i o n c o nfi de nt i a l i t y . In r e s po ns e , M e t z l e r s ug g e s t e d a m eet i ng date t o begin devel opm ent a nd st ate d that he “ l o o k [ ed] f o r war d t o se tt i nga meet i ngda te a nd b eg i nn i n g t h e p ro c es s.” A fte r m on th s o f co rre sp on d en c e, in ea r l y M ar ch2 00 3, Co he n s en t a l et te r b r o ad ly des cr ibing th e pr oj ec t al o ng w ith th e te str es ul ts fr o m a pr ev i o us unsuccessful desi gn byFSand FS ’ s d esi re d fe atur es f or the m oto r. N eit h erthe l ett ernorany cor re spondence du ring tha t t i m e m enti oned co nfi denti al i ty. Laterthat m onth, Cohen tr avel ed to M i l w aukee to m ee t wi thM et zl era nd se ve r alAOS en g i ne er s. Dur i ng thei r m eet i ng, Cohen si gned A OS’ s sta n d ar d one- w ay confi denti al i ty agr eem ent, wh i ch st ate d that F S w as a su p p lier o f res ea rc h co n su ltin g s er vic es . FS d id n otsim il ar l y r equi re A OS to ente r i nto a co nfid en tiali ty agr eem ent despite having dem anded such co nfi denti al i ty ag r ee m en ts i n v ar i o us o th erp rio r b us i ne ss r el at i o nshi ps. A ftersi gni ng the ag re em ent with A OS, Cohen p r o c e e d ed to sh ar e w h at fea tu re s h e th ou gh t w ou ld be i m po r ta nti n the pr o po se d de vi ce a nd de ta i l s abo ut ho w to t es t th e dev i ce . Noto nc e d uringthe meet i ng w i th A OS di d C ohen i denti fy the i nfo rm ati on he provid ed as co n fid en tia l. Fo llow in g t h e m ee tin g, C oh en an d M eh lh or n co m m u n icated pe r i o di ca l l y t o di sc us s te ch ni ca l s ta nda r ds an d deadli nes forthe proj ect. Cohen shar ed tes t r esults fro m a p re vio u s p u m p d es ign an d d et ails on h ow to p ro p e rly4 N o. 11

- 1354 t e s tthe de v e l o pi ngAOS mo t o r wi th a speci a l t e s ts t a nd

. Du ring these conve rs ati ons, confi denti al i ty w as n eve r di s c us s e d. I n S ept embe r 2 003, al m o sto ne y ea r a fte r b eg i nni ng w or ki ng with A OS, Cohen wrote to A OS executi ve St ev e O ’B rie n su m m a r izin g h is v iew of th e re lat ion sh ip be tw eenthe t wo c o m pan i es up unt i l tha t po i nt
. The l et te r s ta te d tha t i fAOS wer e i nt er es te d i n mar k et i ng th e pu m p as a l ife-saving d evice, FS w ou ld su p p ort th at d ecision. C ohe n con clud ed w ith a p r o p osal f or a f or m alag re em ent t o m ove f or w ar d and com m er ci al i ze th e m o to r, r ec o g ni zingtha t no f o r m ala g r ee m en t r el at i ngt o the mot o r c ur r en tly e xi st ed betw eenthe tw o com panie s. Coh en ’ s pr o po sa l pr o duce d no pr ac ti ca l r es ul ts a nd no a gr eem ent was e verr eached b et w een the t w o com pani es. In J anuary20 04, however , Cohen se nt a l ett erto seve nteen differ ent pu m p m anufa cture rs cl ai m i ng to ha ve s o l ve d the s uct i o n e nt r apmentpr o bl em i n a j o i nt eff o r t wi thAOS. O’ Br i enresp ond ed byl et te r t o the sam e pum p m anufa cture rs to co rr ect FS ’ s inaccurat e r e fe r e n c e t o a j o i n tr e l a t i o ns h i p b e t we e n th e t wo c o mpan i es . O’ Br i enal so s en t a l et te r t o Co he n r es ta tingthe po si ti o n t ak eni n h i s l et te r t o th e i ndus try a nd a cc us i ng Cohen ofbr eachi ng AO S’ s co nfi denti al i ty agr eem ent. T h e d i a l o g u e b e c a me c o n t e n t i o u s , b u tth e t wo c o mpanie s co nti nued to co rr espond thr ough the s p ringo f 2004
. N o re soluti on was m ade ofthei r re l ati onshi p by a f o r mala g r e e men to r b y a c kno wl e dg i ngi nt e l l e c t ua l pro per ty ri ghts, and cor re spondence ev entual l y s topped byN o. 11

- 1354 5 O ctob er 2004. Lat er, A O S i n t rod uc ed tw o pu m p m otors tha tF S c l a i ms i nc o r po r a t e d i t s t r a de s e c r e t s : the “ e M o d” and the “Guardi an, ” bo th o ffer ed f orsa l e in M ay 2006
. N ea rly tw o ye ar s la te r, in A p ri l 20 08 , FS filed th is s u it f o r mis appr o pr i at i o n o ft r ade s ec r et s an d unj ust e nr i ch

me n tu n d e r Wi s c o n s i n l a w. T h e d ist ric t c o u rtgra n te d su m m ar y jud gm en t in f av o r o fAOS o n b o thclai m s. The di st r i ctc o ur t f o und that the m i sappropri ati on o ftr ade se cre ts cl ai m was b ar re d u n d er th e t h re e-y ea r st at u te of lim ita tio n s. It furtherf ound, in t h e al ternati ve, thatFSf ai l ed to ta ke re aso nabl e s teps t o prot ect the s ecrecyo fi ts cl ai m ed trad e secre t, and thu s fai led on the m erits. FS’s volun tary disc l osur e o fi ts i nfo rm ati on, the c ou rtf ound, al so d e fe a t e d i t s u nj u s t e n r i c h me n t c l a i m. F S t i me l y a ppeal ed. A s a fi nalj ud gm ent fro m t h e d i str i ct c ourt, w e no te j uri sdic ti on under 2 8 U.S
. C. § 1 291. W e r ev i ew the di st r i ctc o ur t’ s j udg m en t o n the p leadi ngs a nd i ts gr ant o fsum m ar y j ud gm ent de novo . M oss v. M arti n , 4 7 3 F
. 3 d 6 9 4 , 6 9 8 ( 7 th Ci r . 2 0 0 7 ) ( “ We re vi ew a dist ri c t co urt’ s r uling o n a Rul e 1 2( c) m oti on deno vo .”); O ’Rourkev. Pal i s ade s Acq ui s i t i on XVI, LL C, 635 F. 3d 938, 94 1 ( 7th C i r. 20 11) ( gr ant o fsum m ar y j ud gm en t re vie w ed d e n ov o). W e c on st ru e fac ts fav or ab ly to the n o nmo v i ngp a r t y a nd g r a ntthe n o nmo v i ngp a r ty “a ll rea so n ab le in fer en c es ” in its fav or . O gden v. Atte rholt, 606 F.3d 355, 358 (7th Cir. 2010). FS m ake s four ar gum ents on a pp eal . P ri m ar i l y, FS a r gu e s th a tth e d i s t r i c tc o ur te r r e d i n g r a n t i n gs u mm ar y j ud g men to n i t s mi s a pp r o pr i a t i o n o ft r a de s e c re t6 N o. 11

- 1354

N o r m u st w e d ecid e on w he the r the inform atio n w as in 1 the pub lic dom ai n. As we e xpl ai n be l ow, FS f ai l ed t o t ake an y step s to p ro tect its trad e secrets. cl ai m bec ause ther e was am ple ev i dence to fi nd thata confi denti alr el ati onshi p exi ste d and it s di scl os ure of secr et i nfo rm ati on in that re l ati onshi p w as re aso nabl e. Se c on d ly, FS cla im s t h at th e d i s t r i c t c ou rterr on eo u sly add ed a “ w ro ngfulne ss” el em ent t o the r equi rem ents f orW i sc onsin unj ust e nri chm ent c l ai m s. Final l y, FS c on te n d s t h at th e d i s tr ict co u rtab u se d its d isc re tio n in apply i ng qu an tu m mer ui t to F S ’ s unj us t en r i ch m en t cl ai m s a nd excl ud i ng F S’ s dam age s e xperts. W e a gr ee w i th the di str i ct c ou rt t hat F S f ai l ed to ta ke re as on ab le p re c a u t i o n s t o p ro te c t it s t ra d e s ec re ts . Th is fai lure viti ates FS’s claim of m isap p rop riati on. Furth er, be ca us e th e m at er i alF S c o nv ey ed to AOS was wi th o ut any intel l ectualpro pertypro tect i on o r c ontractual ag re em en t fo r c on fid en tia lity , A O S c ou ld n otp ro fit u nj u st ly fr o m the us e o ftha t vo l unt ar i l y disclose d i nf o r m at i o n. For thi s r e a s o n, F S ’ s u nj us te nr i c hme ntc l a i m m us ta l so f ai l

. The di str i c t courti ni ti al l y found, how eve r, that the m i sapp ropri ati on s uitwas bar re d by l aches, since FS knew orsho uld have di sco ver ed A OS’ s ini ti alal l ege d m isap pr o pr i at i o n mor e th anthr ee y ea r s be f o r e fi l i ng sui t. Because w e a ffi rm o n the m er i ts, w e nee d not addr es s th e di st r i ctc o ur t’ s an aly si s o fl ac he s. F o r the sam e r eas on, the re l ate d i ssues o fco rr ect dam ag es mod e l a nd e xc l us i o n o fF S ’ s e xp e r t wi tne s s e s a r e mo o t e d. 1N o. 11

- 1354 7 1. FS f ai l ed to ta ke re aso nabl e pr ote cti ve m eas ures f or i ts c l ai m ed trad e sec r etunde r the c i r cumst an ce s, a nd thus cannotcl ai m tr ade secre t pr ote cti on. To qual i fy a s a t r a de s e c r e tu nd e r Wi s c o ns i n l aw , th e c l a i med t r a de secr et

— that i s, the propri eta ryi nfo rm ati on

— m ust be th e “su bj ect of effor t s t o m aintain i ts secrec y tha t are re aso nabl e under the c i rcum sta nces. ” W i s. S tat
. § 134. 90 ( 20 11 )
. “ [ F ] ai l ur e to t ak e r ea so nabl e st eps t o pr ev en t gr atui tous disc l osur e” ofthe al l ege d trade s ecr et f or fei ts an y p ro te c tio n . Bondpro Corp. v. Si e m e ns PowerGe ne r at i on, Inc. , 46 3 F
. 3d 702, 70 8 ( 7th Ci r. 20 06)
. Though abs olute se c r e c y is n otreq u ire d , see Rockwe l l Gr aphi cs Sy s . , Inc . v. D E V Indus. , Inc. , 9 25 F
. 2d 174, 1 77( 7th Ci r . 1 99 1) , “ o ne w ho cl ai m s a tr ade se cre t m u st exer ci se ete rnalvi gi l ance i n prot ecting i ts confi denti al i ty. ” R TE C o rp. v. C o a ting s, Inc. , 2 67 N
. W
. 2d 22 6, 2 33 ( W i s. 1 97 8)
. Ev en“ [ t] he exi ste nce o f a confi denti al i ty agr eem ent i s no t a l w ays enough. ” ECT In t ’ l, In c . v . Zwe r l e in , 5 97 N
. W
. 2d 479, 48 4 (W is. Ct
. A p p . 1999). W e a gr ee w i th the di strict c ou rtthatFSf ai l ed to tak e r eas onabl e s teps under the c ircum sta nces to m ai ntain the se cre cy re quir ed f ortr ade se cre t pr ote cti on. Ind eed, FSf ai l ed to ta ke anysteps to pro tecti ts i nfo rm ati on. N one ofthe i nfo rm ati on pro vi ded byFS to A O S w as m ar ke d co n f i d en tia l, n or d id FS m ak e it kn ow n th at it ex p ec te d th is in for m a tio n to rem ain co n fid en tia l. R at h er , FS vo lu n te er ed in for m at ion an d w illing ly coo perat ed with AO S. Ind eed, FSsi gned A OS’ s o ne- w ay confi denti al i ty agr eem ent, ye t f ai l ed to o btain si m i l ar8 N o. 11

- 1354 prot ecti on despi te havi ng pro tect ed i tse l fwith s i m i l ar confi den tia l i ty agr eem ents i n the past. I fthe i nfo rm ati on FS pro vi ded was c onfi denti al, then FS sho uld have r equested r eci proca l co nfi denti al i ty i n i ts com m unica

tio ns and e xchanges w i th A OS. FS f ai l ed to m ake a m od icu m o f effor t to prote ct th e con fi d en tiali ty of its inform at ion , a f ai l ure that w as not re aso nabl e under these ci rcum sta nces. O n ap p ea l, FS relie s o n th is c ou rt ’s d ec isio n in Le ar ni ng Cur veToys , Inc. v. Play Wood To ys, Inc. , 342 F. 3d 714 ( 7th Ci r. 2 00 3), to cl ai m thatsum m ar y j ud gm ent, b as ed on th e re as on ab len es s o f F S’s be lief th at it w as in a co nfi den ti alr el at i o ns hi p, was i na ppr o pr i at e. F S mai ntains thati t r eas onabl y b el i eve d i t had ent er ed i nto a j oi nt v e ntur e wi th AOS a nd , a s a r e s ul t, AOS was under a du t y o fc o nfi de nt i a l i t y . I fs uc h a r e l a t i o ns hi p e xi s t e d, FS m aint ains , i ts l ac ko fi nde pen den t pr ec au ti o na ry m ea su r es was r ea so nabl e be ca us e th e duty of co nfi den

ti al i typr o te ct ed th e infor m at i o n s ha r ed i n the r el at i o nsh ip
. Le ar ni ng Cur ve, ho w ev er , i s re ad ily d ist in gu ish ab le fro m the pres ent c ase bec ause Le ar ni ng Cur vecent er ed o n the e xi st en ce o fa n o r alc o nfi d en ti al i tya g r ee m en t between u n so phist i cate d parti es that w as adopted b efo re an y in for m at ion w as ex c h an ge d

. Id. at71 7. M o r eove r, i n Le ar ni ng Cur vewe no te d tha t th e pl ainti ff s were a s m al l busi ness, co nsi stingo fo nl y tw o peopl e. Id. at72 4. There , we f ound that I l l i noi s co urts have “r eco gni ze d o n s ev er alo cc as i o ns tha t th e ex pec ta ti ons f o r e nsuring se cre cy ar e di ffer ent forsm al l co m panie s than f orl ar ge com panie s. ” Id. ( ci ti ng Ja ckson v. Ha m m er, 65 3N o. 11

- 1354 9 N
. E.2 d 809, 81 5 ( I l l

. A pp . Ct. 19 95) ( “The deter m i nati on o fwhats te ps ar e r ea so nabl y ne ce ss ar y t o pr o te cti nform at ion is d if fer en t fo r a la rg e c om p an y t h an for a sm all on e.” )). Th e re as on ab len es s o f t h e p lain tiff’s st ep s in Lea rningCurve t o pr o t e c t i t s t r a de s e c r e t s wa s he l d to a l oo serst andard , ye t e ven there , thatunsophi sti cate d busi ness used a confi denti al i ty agr eem ent ( eve n tho ugh or al). Id. H er e, the r e i s no e vi den ce tha t a co nfi den ti alr el at i o nsh i p e xi st ed. The p arti es ne ve r c o nc l ude d a b i ndi ng agreem en t before disclo s in g i nform ation. FS’ s m ere su bj ective belief t h a t i t had ente red i nt o a j oint ven tu re d oes not w arran t prot ection
. Ev en i f th is court w ere to agr ee w i th FSthatco oper ati on a l one m ay i m pose a du ty ofco nfi denti al i ty between tw o sophi sti cate d parti es, the degre e o fco oper ati on in this cas e i s no t s o gr ea t a s t o in d ica te th e p ar tie s c ou ld rea so n a b ly be l i ev e th eywer e i n a j o i ntv en tu r e wi thr ec i pr o ca l c o nfi den ti al i ty
. AOS an d F S di sc us se d po te nt i al l y c r ea ting a p rod uc t and FS, perh ap s w ary of ali en at in g A O S, did notpre ss the i ssue ofco nfi dentialityo r i nquir e a s to re ci proca l duti es. M or eov er, w hen FSat tem pted to for m alize the agr eem ent m or e than one yea r afterthey firs t b eg an w or kin g t o ge th er , th e w or kin g re lat ion sh ip fel l apar t. W hen FSuni l ate ra l l y a nnounced in a l ett er t o me mbe r s o fi t s i nd us t r y t ha ti twa s i n a de v e l o pm en t r el at i o ns hi p wi thAOS, AOS i m m edi at ely r epu diat ed FS ’ s cl ai m . Ind eed, per haps i n an e ff or t t o m ot i v a t e AOS t o c o me t o the b a r g a i ning t ab l e , F S r em i nd e d AOS tha t the t wo c o mpa ni e s ha d no f or m al r e l a t i o ns hi p.10 N o. 11

- 1354 E ve n as su m in g s om e s or t o f info rm al re lat ion sh ip exi ste d th at hi nted at confi denti al i ty, FSst i l l f ai l ed to tak e a ny st ep s to m ai ntai n i ts secr ecy, wh i ch w as unreasonab l e under these ci rcum sta nces. N o i nfo rm ati on was e ve r marked c o nfi den ti al

. Nordi d F S t ak e an y steps to pr o te cti ts c l ai m ed pr o pr i et ar y i nf o r m at i o n, c o ntr actual l y o r othe rw ise. FSvo l unteer ed i ts i nfo rm ati o n t o AOS. And, unl i k e i n Le ar ni ng Cur ve, t he to pic of c on fid en tia lity w as n ev er e ve n b ro ac h ed by FS, a s op h ist icate d partyf am i l i arwith s uch agr eem ents. A OS, with i ts o ne - way c o nf i den ti ali ty agreem en t, w as th e onl y par ty that too k a ny pro tect i ve ste ps. U nd erthes e ci rcum sta nces, FS ’ s e ff or ts ( orl ack ther eof ) to m ai nt ain secr ecy ofi ts cl ai m ed tr ade se cre ts w er e no t r eas onabl e. We a g r e e w i th th e d i s t r i c tc o u r t th a tth i s i s a n “ e x t r e me case . ” F S f ai l ed to ta ke any preca uti onar y m eas ures to p rotect its claim ed trad e secrets
. Th erefore, FS’s acti ons w er e no t r eas onabl e under these circu m sta nces a nd c a nno t sus t a i n F S ’ s mi s a pp r o pr i a t i o n o ft r a de s e c r e t s c l a i m.

II. B ec au se w e fin d th at FS’s tra d e s ec re t c l aim fails , i t follo w s t h at FS’s u nj u st en ric h m en t c laim m u st als o fa il. F S wi l l i ng l y v o l unt ee r ed i nf o r m at i on to AOS, a nd thus th er e is no th i ngunj us t ab o utAOS’ s l at erus e o f, a nd be ne fi t fr o m , tha t i nf o r m at i o n. U n d er W isc on sin law , an u nj u s t en ric h m en t c laim re quir es a pla i nti ff prove that: ( 1) a benefi t was “co nfe rr edN o. 11

- 1354 11 up on the defendant by the p laintiff ”; ( 2) ther e was an “appreciatio n by the defendant ofthe f act ofsuch a bene

fi t”; and ( 3) ther e w as “acce ptance a nd r ete nti on o f the b enefi t bythe defe nd ant under ci rcu m st ances such th at i t woul d be i ne qui tabl e to r et ain th e be nefi t w itho ut paym ent o fthe val ue thereo f

. ” Se ege rs v. Sp r ague, 23 6 N. W
. 2 d 2 2 7, 2 3 0 ( W i s. 197 5 )
. In the c o nt e xto ft r a de se cr et s, “ W isc o ns i n l aw de ni es r ec o ve r y f o r unj us t en ri chm ent i fal l the defendant h as done i s use ( to hi s pro fi t) an i dea ofthe pla i nti ffthati s no t a tr ade se cre t. ” C onfold P a c., Inc . v. P o la ris Ind us. , 433 F.3d 952 , 957 (7th C ir. 2006 ) ( ci ti ng Ab b o t tL a b s v . No rs eC h e mi c a l C o rp. , 1 47 N
. W
. 2d 529, 541 (W is. 1 967) (“[I f] no trad e secrets w ere appropri ate d by the defenda n ts, ther e was no unj ust enri chm ent .
. . ”) )
. Si m ply pu t, one cannot ste alfre e a dvic e. On a pp eal, FSar gues that the di str i ct c ourter re d by ad d in g a “w ro n gfu ln es s” o r f au lt e lem en t t o W isc on sin unj ust e nri chm ent l aw . True, f aul t i s no t a n el em en t. Bu t the d i str i ct c ourtdi d not a dd a f aul t e l em ent; th e di st r i ctwas mer ely l o o k i ngf o r so m e i nde pen den t pr o te ct i o n tha t was v i o l at ed to make AOS’ s en r i ch m en t unju st or ine quit ableunder the thi rd el em ent. The di str i ct cour t m ade cl eari n i ts anal ysi s that “ f aul t ind eed does not need to exi st i n or der fora pla i nti ffto as ser t a n unj ust e n ric hm ent c l ai m . ” Instea d, the c ourt ’ s di scussi on ofcas es, so m e o fwh i ch i nvol ved w ro ngfulne ss, f ocuse d on the i nequit abl e r ete nti on o fa benefi t bya defe nd ant. W rongfu lness i s not a ne cess ary con d iti on, bu t it is su ffi c ien t to show that c i rcum sta nces w ar ra nt that, beca us e o f defen dan t’ s co nduc t, s he mustc o m pen sa te the pl a i nt i fff o r the v a l ue o fthe b e ne fi tc o nfe r r e d. S ee A bb ott12 N o. 11

- 1354 Labs , 1 4 7N. W
. 2 d a t5 4 1 ( “ Unj us te nr i c hme nt
. . . r e qu i re s a wrongful tak i ng o r appropri ati on o fo ther s’ pro p er ty to one’s ow n u se.”). F arfr o m c r ea tinga ne w w r o ng ful ne ss requ ir ement, the dist ri ct c ourtco rr ectly no ted thati nequ itabl e r ete nti on m ust co m e fro m an in d ependent vi ol ati on o fFS ’ s r i ghts u n d er so m e “ b od y of la w .” Co n f ol d Pac
. , In c. , 4 33 F. 3d at 959. Such a viol ation m a y a rise from a defen d an t’s u se ofi nfo rm ati on pro tect ed by an i ntel l ectualpro perty r i g ht, a c o nfi den ti alr el at i o ns hi p o r a c o nt r ac t. B ut no ne oftho se prot ecti ons a re p re sent i n thi s ca se. Because FS and A OS w er e no t in a c onfi denti alr el ati onshi p, because FS neve r sough t to sa feguar d i ts i nfo rm ati on thro ugh co nt r ac t an d b ec au se A OS di d no t m i sa ppr o pr i at e an y o fF S ’ s t r a d e s e c r e t s , th i s c o u r tc a n n o t, i n e q u i t y, g r a nt re l i efbas ed on AO S’ s co nd uct. W e a gr ee w i th the di str i ct c ourtthatFS“co urted [ i ts] o w n dis ast er ” byf ai l i ng t o take any prot ecti ve m easu re s. RTE Corp. , 26 7 N .W .2d at 233
. Because A OS’ s use o fF S ’ s i nfo r m at i o n di d no t vi o late som e i nde pen den t pr o te ct i o n, AO S co ul d no t pr o fi t unj us tly fr o m th e informat i o n F S di s c l o s e d. Forthe f or ego i ng r eas ons, the j ud gm ent i s A FFI RMED .

3- 29- 12