UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

_________________________________

FORREST L. GEIST, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY 

FOUNDATION; KANSAS STATE 

UNIVERSITY; NETWORK 

KANSAS; NORTHWEST KANSAS 

ECONOMIC INNOVATION 

CENTER, INC.; WESTERN 

KANSAS RURAL ECONOMIC 

DEVELOPMENT ALLIANCE; 

DAVID TOLAND; KANSAS 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE; 

GROW HAYS, INC., 

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 23-3266

(D.C. No. 6:23-CV-01129-JWBGEB)

(D. Kan.)

_________________________________

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

_________________________________

Before BACHARACH, EID, and FEDERICO, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________

* Oral argument would not help us decide the appeal, so we have 

decided the appeal based on the record and the parties’ briefs. See Fed. R. 

App. P. 34(a)(2)(C); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G).

This order and judgment does not constitute binding precedent except 

under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. 

But the order and judgment may be cited for its persuasive value if 

otherwise appropriate. See Fed. R. App. P. 32.1(a); 10th Cir. R. 32.1(A).

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

August 16, 2024

Christopher M. Wolpert

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 23-3266 Document: 010111095810 Date Filed: 08/16/2024 Page: 1
2

Forrest L. “Lenny” Geist, proceeding pro se, appeals from the district 

court’s order dismissing his complaint against Kansas State University 

(“K-State”), the Kansas State University Foundation (“K-State 

Foundation”), Network Kansas, Northwest Kansas Economic Innovations 

Center, Inc., Western Kansas Rural Economic Development Alliance, and 

Lt. Governor David Toland, being sued in his official capacity. 1 Exercising 

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm for substantially the same 

reasons given by the district court.

I.

In April 2023, Mr. Geist sued for misappropriation of trade secrets in 

connection with the announcement of the K-State 105 initiative. Mr. Geist

alleged that this initiative had copied his business plan for a statewide 

network of 105 “ag-tech campuses.” 

Mr. Geist brought causes of action for (1) violations of the Uniform 

Trade Secrets Act and Defend Trade Secrets Act; (2) violations of the 

Economic Espionage Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1832; (3) violations of Kansas 

Statute § 22-2619, which concerns venue for crimes committed with 

electronic devices; (4) criminal conspiracy; (5) violations of the Digital 

1 Mr. Geist named several other defendants on the face of his 

complaint but included no specific allegations referencing them. The 

district court dismissed all such claims for failure to include specific 

allegations.

Appellate Case: 23-3266 Document: 010111095810 Date Filed: 08/16/2024 Page: 2
3

Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”), 17 U.S.C. §§ 1201-1205; 

(6) tortious interference with prospective business advantage; 

(7) violations of federal securities laws; and (8) violations of the Computer 

Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1030.

In an order dated November 21, 2023, the district court dismissed the 

action and entered final judgment. The court dismissed the claims against 

K-State and Lt. Gov. Toland under Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of jurisdiction 

based on sovereign immunity and dismissed all claims against the 

remaining defendants under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. The 

court concluded that plaintiff’s allegations concerning his business plan 

were not sufficiently specific to plead the existence of a trade secret. See 

Oakwood Labs., LLC v. Thanoo, 999 F.3d 892, 906 (3d Cir. 2021)

(explaining that in a misappropriation case, the alleged trade secret must 

be described with sufficient particularity to put the defendant on notice of 

the claims being made against it); InteliClear, LLC v. ETC Global Hldgs., 

Inc., 978 F.3d 653, 658 (9th Cir. 2020) (same).

The court went on to hold that Mr. Geist’s failure to allege 

registration of a copyright was fatal to his claim under the DMCA. See 

Unicolors, Inc. v. H&M Hennes & Mauritz, L.P., 595 U.S. 178, 181 (2022)

(explaining that a valid copyright registration is “a prerequisite for 

bringing a civil action for infringement of the copyrighted work” (internal 

quotation marks omitted)). With this holding, the court dismissed the 

Appellate Case: 23-3266 Document: 010111095810 Date Filed: 08/16/2024 Page: 3
4

tortious interference claims, reasoning that Mr. Geist had not identified the 

parties to the alleged business relationship or alleged facts supporting an 

inference of interference with any such relationship to his financial 

detriment. See Cohen v. Battaglia, 293 P.3d 752, 755 (Kan. 2013) (setting 

forth elements of tortious interference claim). The court dismissed 

• claims under the Economic Espionage Act, Kansas Statute 

§ 22-2619, and for criminal conspiracy, concluding that these 

criminal laws do not provide a private right of action,

• the federal securities claims because the complaint did not 

identify a security as to which the federal securities laws might 

apply, and

• the claim under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act because the 

complaint did not allege facts to indicate any defendant 

engaged in unauthorized use of a computer as required by 

18 U.S.C § 1030(a). 

II.

Our review is de novo. See Frank v. Lee, 84 F.4th 1119, 1131 (10th 

Cir. 2023) (“We review a district court’s determination of state sovereign 

immunity de novo.”), cert. denied, 144 S. Ct. 1349 (2024); Sagome, Inc. v. 

Cincinnati Ins. Co., 56 F.4th 931, 934 (10th Cir. 2023) (“We review a Rule 

12(b)(6) dismissal de novo and apply the same standards as the district 

court.”). To survive a motion to dismiss, “a complaint must allege facts 

that, if true, state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Sagome, 

56 F.4th at 934 (internal quotation marks omitted). We must construe 

Mr. Geist’s pro se filings liberally but we “cannot take on the 

Appellate Case: 23-3266 Document: 010111095810 Date Filed: 08/16/2024 Page: 4
5

responsibility of serving as [his] attorney in constructing arguments and 

searching the record.” Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 

836, 840 (10th Cir. 2005).

Mr. Geist fails to make a cogent argument demonstrating how the 

district court erred in dismissing his claims. His appellate briefs set forth 

many legal principles and theories, but none bear on the grounds for 

dismissal. We thus affirm the dismissal of this action for substantially the 

same reasons stated in the district court’s well-reasoned order.

Entered for the Court

Per Curiam

Appellate Case: 23-3266 Document: 010111095810 Date Filed: 08/16/2024 Page: 5