The H onorab le G
. Patric k M urph y, Un it ed Stat es D is tr ic t  J ud ge f or the Southern D is tr ic t of Il li nois , is si tt ing by d es ignat 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. 10

- 2144 S EN G -T I ONG H O, et a l., P laint if fs -App el lants , v. A LLE N T AF LOV E , et a l., D efend a nts-A pp ellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Div isi on. No . 1:07- cv-04305

—E lai ne E . Bu cklo, Judge
.
A RGUED J AN UA RY 20, 2011

— D ECIDED J UNE 6, 2011

Befo re R IPPLE a nd H A MI L T ON, C ircu i t Ju dg es , a nd M UR PHY, D i s t r i ctJudg e .  R IPPLE, Cir cu it Judg e . S eng- Tio ng H o and Yingy an H u an g b ro u gh t t h is a c tio n ag ain st A llen T aflo ve an d Sh iH uiCha ng in th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st r i ctCo ur t f o r the N o r th ern Di st r i cto fI l l i no i s. The y all eg ed th atthe de fen -2 N o. 10

- 2144 d a n t s , me mb e r s o fa n o th e r r e s e a r c h t e a m a tth e s a me u n i v e r s i t y, v i o l a t e d th e C o p y r i g h tAc tb y p u b l i sh i ng equati ons, figures and text copi ed fro m the pla i nti ff s’ wo r k

. T h e p l a i n t i ff s a l s o r a i s e d s e v e r a l s t a t e l a w c l a i ms aga i nst the defenda nts b ase d on the al l ege d copyi ng. The defe nd ants fi l ed a m oti on f orsum m ary j ud gm ent a nd a m oti on t o dism iss . The di str i ct c ourtgr anted the defendants’ m oti on f orsum m ar y j ud gm ent a s t o al l cl ai m s a nd th er efo re decl i ned to add re ss the m oti on to dism i ss. W e co ncl ud e that the di str i ct c ourtco rr ectly g ra nted sum m ar y j ud gm ent in f avo r ofthe defe n d ants. Pro fess or H o and M s. H uang f ai l to sho w a genui ne di spute o f m ate ri alf act that, i fr eso l ved i n thei r f avo r, would gi ve the a l l ege dlyco pie d equati ons, fi gure s a nd te xt the protect i on o fthe Copyri ght Act. M or eov er, the Copyr i g h t A c t p r e e mp t s t wo o fth e th r e e s t a t e l a w c l a i ms ra i sed o n appeal ; the thi rd stat e la w cl ai m f ai l s t o surv i ve sum m ar y j ud gm ent o n the m er i ts. A ccor dingl y, w e a ffi rm the j ud gm ent o fthe dist ri ct c ourt
.
I B AC KGR OUND A . Facts Pro fes sor s Ho and Tafl ove ar e bo th eng i neer i ng pro fes so r s atNor th wes te r n Uni ve r sity, a nd, dur i ngthe re lev an t p e r i od , M s. H u an g a n d M r. C h an g w er e e n gi-N o. 10

- 2144 3

M s . Huang i s c ur re nt l y a n e m pl oye e ofPr ofessor Ho. 1 M r. Chang i s now a prof es sor at National Ch eng K ung Un ivers i t y i n Ta i wan. Forthe purpo s es ofthi s opi ni on, we us e the tit le s th e p a rt ie s h a d d u ri n g t h e r e l e v a n t ti m e p er io d (i.e., M r. C h a n g , no t P ro fes so r C h a n g ). neer i ng g ra du ate stud ents at N or thw est er n U ni ver si ty. 1 St ar ti ng i n 199 7, M r. Chang w or ke d as a gr aduate stude ntwi thPr o fes so r Ho. I n 1 99 8, Pr o fes so r Ho co ncei ved ofand fi rs t for m ula ted a “4- l eve l 2-electro n ato m i c m od elwith Paul i Exclusi on Pr i nci ple f or sim u lat in g t h e d yn am ics of ac tiv e m ed ia in a p h ot on ic dev i ce ( ’ th e M o del ’)
. ” Appel l an ts ’ Br
. 4
. I t i s no t co nte st ed th atthe M o delsi g ni fi ca nt l y a dva nc ed pr ev i o us m od els . B y 1 99 9, P ro fes so r H o h ad co m p let ed m at h em at ica l de r i va ti o ns of th e M o del, whi chc o m pr i se d s i xty - ni ne pages ofnot es and equati ons. The M odel c u rrentl y has no know n com m er ci aluse. Pro fess orH o then t ask ed M r. C h ang with cr eat i ng a com pu terpro gr am c od e, usi ng the deri ved equati ons, f o r th e p u r p o s e o fr u n n i n gMo d e l s i mu l a t i o ns . T h e c o mpu terpro gr am c ode was bas ed on a n ear l i erpro gr am th at M r. Ch an g h a d h elped create. M r. Ch an g, how ever, was uns ucc es sfuli n thi s ta sk be ca us e o fpr o g r amm i ng er ro rs . I n Jun e 2002, M r. C ha ng sw itche d to Professor T afl ove’s r es ea r chg r o up. W he n Mr. Cha ngs wi tc he d g r o ups , he was war ne d b y the he ad of the de par tmentno t to c o ntinu e any w ork prev iously don e in Professor H o’s g r o up an d to av o i d m i sa ppr o pr i at i ng Pr o fes so r H o’s4 N o. 10

- 2144

The confer en c e pape r was pr epa re d by S eo ngs i k Cha ng, 2 a postdoc to ra l fel low in Prof es sor H o’ s group , and lis ted Pr ofes s or H o, M r. C han g ( the d efen dant ) and M s . H uan g a s c oau tho rs. w ork. M r. Ch an g return ed seve r a l of Professor H o’s no tebo o k s, b uthe f ai l ed to r etur n a n o r i g i na l c o py o fo ne of P ro fes so r H o’s n ot eb oo ks p re vio u sly iss u ed to h im i n ear l y 2 002 to re cor d his work. Ms
. H u a n gb e g a n t o w o r kf o r P r o fe s s o r H o i n S e p t e mb e r 2 0 0 0
. Unt i l 2 0 0 1 , Ms. Hua ng’ s wo r kf o c us e d o n a pply i ng the M odelto di ffer ent m ed iu m s. W i th per m i ssi o n f r o m Pr o fes so r H o , so m e r es ul ts f r om the pl ainti ff s’ r ese ar ch w er e m enti on ed b ri efl y in a c onfer ence p ap er p u b lish e d i n 2 00 1 an d th en w er e p u b lish ed in fu ll 2 i n 2 00 2 i n Ms. H uang ’ s m as te r ’ s th es i s. M r . Cha ng, who al re ady had switc hed to Pro fess orTaflove’ s r ese ar ch g r o u p , a s k e d Ms
. Hu a n gt o p r o v i d e h i m wi th t wo fi gure s fro m herwork and copi es ofherm ast er ’ s thesi s. Pro fess orTafl ove and M r. Chang subm i tte d a sy m posi um paper to the I E E E A ntennas and Propaga ti on So c iet y (“ A P S p ap er ”) a n d an art icle to th e jou rn al O ptics E xp ress ( “OE ar ticle ”)
. The se s ubmi ss i o ns de sc r ibe d the M o de l and i t s a pp l i c a t i o ns : T he APSp a pe r p r o v i de d a bri efsum m ar y, and the OE ar ti cl e d escr ibed the M odel in d etail. S o m e of th e fi gu res in M s. H ua ng ’s m aster’s th es i s al so wer e i nc l ude d i n the se s ub m is si o ns . The APS paper w as pu bl i shed i n 200 3, and the OE ar ti cl e was publ i shed i n 200 4. Pro fes sor Tafl ove and M r. Chang did not at tr ibut e an y o fthe c o nt en ts o fthe OE ar ti cl e o r the A PS paperto Pro fess orH o orM s. H uang.N o. 10

- 2144 5 Pro fess orH o fi rs t be cam e a w ar e o fthe al l ege d w ro ngdoi ng i n 2004, w hen he subm i tte d hi s proj ect for publ i ca ti o n in O ptic s Com m uni ca t i ons , and i t was r ej ecte d b e c a u s e o fa p r e v i o u s l y p u b l i s h e d p a p e r o n th e s a me to pi c, na m ely Pr o fes so r Ta fl o ve and M r . Cha ng ’ s APS paper. I n 20 07, the pla i nti ff s r ecei ved cer ti fi cate s o fco pyri gh t in Pro fess orH o’ s 1 998 and 1999 note boo ks, M s. H u an g’s m as te r’s th es is, tw o figu re s us e d w i th in M s. Hua ng ’ s ma s t e r ’ s the s i s a nd a v i s ua l p r e s e nt a ti on giv en by M s. H u an g t h at d isc u ss ed th e M od el. Pro fess orH o and M s. H uang al l ege thatProfe ss or Tafl ove and M r. Chang i nfr i nged upon thei r copyr i ghts si x t i m es , b y us i ngthe c o py r i g hted m ate r i al s wi th o ut perm i ssi on in the f ol l owing docum ents, l i ste d chrono

l ogi cal l y: ( 1) the A PS paper ; ( 2) M r. C h an g’ s Ph. D. thesi s; (3) th e O E articl e; (4) Professor T a fl o v e a nd M r. Ch an g’s boo kc ha pt e r, p ub l i s he d b y Ar t e c h Ho us e i n 2 0 0 5; ( 5) Pro fess orTafl ove ’ s pre senta ti on in 2006 ; and (6) Pro fesso r Ta fl o ve ’ s pr es en ta ti o n in 2 00 7. “ [ T] he t wo mai n inf r i ng i ngdo cument s” a r e th e A PS sy m po sium pa pera nd th e OE a r ti cle , a s th e o th eri nc i den ts o fi nfr i ng ement i nvol ve parts o fthes e tw o docum ents. A pp el l ants’ Br. 7. P ro fes so r H o a n d M s. H u an g a ss er t t h atth e O E art icle has tw enty- one i tem s co p ied fr om thei r w or k a nd that the APS sym posi um paper has tw el ve, cr eat i ng thi rtyth r ee i nfr i ng ement s i n to ta l

. Pr o fes so r Ho an d M s. Huang cal cul ate that, fro m thatl i st o f co pie d i tem s, fi fty- fi ve perce nt ar e t ext, thi rty per cent ar e e quat ion s an d fi ftee n perce nt ar e fi gure s.6 N o. 10

- 2144 B. Dist r i ctCourtPro ceedi ngs Pro fess orH o an d M s. H uang br ought thi s a cti on aga i nst Pro fess orTafl ove and M r. Chang, al l eging co pyri ght infr i ngem ent a nd st ate l aw cl ai m s o ff al se desi gnati o n o fo r i g i n, unf ai r c o m pet i ti o n, c o nv er si o n, fr au d a nd m isap p rop riati on of trad e sec r ets. Th e d istri ct cou rt gr anted sum m ar y j ud gm ent in f avo r of th e defendants f oral l cl ai m s, s e eHo v. Taf l ove, 6 9 6 F
. S up p. 2 d 9 5 0 ( N. D. I l l

. 20 10) , and subse quentl y deni ed t he pl ai nti ff s’ m oti on for rec on sid er at ion, seeR. 139.

1. Sum m ary J ud gmen tM ot i on The di st r i ctc o ur t addr es se d s epa r at ely e ach of the pl aint i ff s’ fi ve c l ai m s. On appeal, Pr o fes so r Ho an d M s. H ua ng cha ll en ge o n ly the d istri ct cou rt’s sum m ary j ud gm ent r uling o n thei r cl ai m s o fco pyri ght infr i ngem ent, conve rs i on, f ra ud and t ra de secr ets m i sappropri ation. W e the refore shall ex am ine th e d istri ct cou rt’s rul i ngs o nl y o n thos e cl ai m s. W i th r espectto co pyri gh t infringem ent, the dist ri ct cou r t he l d tha t th e equa ti o ns , fi g ur es a nd t ex t w ere “unprote ctabl e co ncept s, i deas, m etho ds, pro cedures, pr o ce ss es , s y st ems, a nd/ o r di sc o ve r i es ” an d tha t th e m er ger doctr i ne i s a pp l i cabl e be cause ther e a re l i m i ted w ay s o f m at h em at ica lly ex p re ss in g t h e M od el. Ho , 69 6 F
. S u p p . 2 d a t9 5 4
. T h e d i s t r i c tc o u r tr ej e c t e d th e p l ai nti ff s’ an al ogythat, j ust a s M i ckeyM ouse i s a part i cul ar express i on o fa m ouse, the M odeli s a c re at i ve expression of a scien tific ph en om en on. In th e district cou rt’sN o. 10

- 2144 7

B efore the d istrict cou rt, the p lain tiffs m ad e no spe cific claim 3 t hatP r o fe s s o r Ho ’ s 2 0 0 2 n o t e b o o k wa s g i v e n t o Mr
. C h a ng an d n e v e r r etu rn ed

. In fact, Pro fessor H o a d m itted in his d ep osition tha t, to h is kn ow led g e, the d efend an t s nev er p hy sical ly had taken anything of his

. R
. 82, Ex. E ( H o D ep. ) at 471- 72. vi ew , M i ckeyM ouse i s e nti re l y fi ctit i ous, but the M odel m i m i cs r eal i ty. The di str i ct c ourtr em ai ned unp er suaded by the pl ai nti ff s’ co ntenti on that “ unique a ssum pti ons” i ndi ca te tha t th e M o deli s fi cti onal b ec au se the pl ainti ff s were u nabl e to i den ti fy whatuni que a ss um pti o ns ex ist ed

. Id. W ith resp ect to th e c o nv ersion claim , the d istri ct cou rt fi rs t di sm i sse d any cl ai m thatthe defe nd ants conv er ted physi calco pie s o fthe pla i nt iffs’ workbec ause, bas ed on the pre sente d evi dence, the p lain ti ff s had acc ess to su chi te m s ata l l t i m es. As fo r c o nv er si o n o fthe 3 i ntangibl e i deas cl ai m , the cour t no ted that ther e was no e vi dence thatthe defe nd ants preve nted Profess or H o and M s. H uang “fro m c onducti ng, co ntro l l i ng, access i ng, usi ng, o r pu bl i shi ng the i r re sea rch. ” Id. at95 7. The dis tr i ct c ourtal so found i nsuffi ci ent e vi dence to su ppo r t a cl ai m o f f r au d: “By ta k i ng cr edi t for pl aintiffs’ w ork, de fend an ts m ay ha ve m isl ed pu bli sh ers or re a d e r s as to p ro p er au th or sh ip , bu t t h ey cle ar ly did notm i sl ead pl ai nti ff s. ” Id. I n the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s v i ew , no tr ade se cre ts m i sappropri ati on o ccurr ed beca use th e M od elwas not kept secre t. I t r eas oned thatthe M odelwas pub lish ed by Professor H o and M s. H ua ng in 2001 and 2002. M oreover,8 N o. 10

- 2144

Fe der al Rul e of Ci vi l Pr oc edur e 60 ( b) s t at es : “On m ot i on and 4 j ust ter m s, the court m ay rel ie ve a party o r i ts l egal r epres enta- (co n tin u ed ...) a t ra de sec re t i s no t d ep en d en t o n w hetherpro per attr ibuti on i s g i ven in l ate r publi cati ons. I n s u p p o r to fa t r a d e s e c r e t s mi s a p p r o p r i a t i o n c l a i m, Pro fess orH o al so had asse rt ed that P ro fess orTafl ove a nd Mr
. Ch a ng ’ s a r t i c l e a nd b o o kc ha pt e r c o nt ai ned so m e m at er ials from th e n ot eb oo ks th at w er e n otp re vio us l y pub l i sh ed. The di st r i ctc o urt , ho wev er, f o und thi s s tat em ent “ unsup port ed” and “nebulo u s. ” Id. at95 8. Thu s, the asser tio n by Pro fess orH o w as i nsuffi ci ent t o su ppo r t a cl ai m o ft r ade s ec r et s m i sa ppr o pr i at i o n. I n the al ternati ve, the dist ri ct cour t f ound a l l the state law clai m s p reem p ted by the Cop yrigh t A c t . Th e cou rt no te d tha t pr ee m pti on can appl y e ve n whe n the al l ege dlyco pie d m ate ria l i s no t s ubj ect to prot ecti on un d er the C op yright A ct. Oth erw ise, the d istri ct cou rt n ote d, the s tat e co uld g i ve copyr i ght- l i ke prot ecti on t o m ate rial thatCongr ess had deci ded notto pro tectby c o p y r i g h t
. A c c o r d i n g l y, th e d i s t r i c tc o u r tg r a n t e d s u mm ar y j udg m en t i n f av o r o fPr o fes sor Ta fl o ve a nd M r. Chang f oral l cl ai m s.

2. M ot i on f orReconsider at i on F o l l o wi ngthe c o ur t ’ s r ul i ng, the p l a i nt i ff s fi l e d a m oti on f orr eco nsi derat i on. A l th ou gh the fi l i ng was lab ele d as a R u le 6 0(b ) m ot ion, seeF ed. R. Ci v. P. 60 ( b) , the 4N o. 10

- 2144 9

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 4 t i v e fro m a final jud g m en t, or d er, or p ro ceed ing f or the following reasons

. ” The reas ons l is ted i n R ule 60(b) i nclude: (1) m istak e, i na d v erten ce, surp rise, or excu sab le ne g lect; ( 2) newly di s c ove re d evi denc e that, with r ea s onable dili gence, could not have been d is covered in ti m e t o m ov e for a n ew trial un d er R u le 5 9 (b ); ( 3) f ra ud (w he the r pre vi ous l y c al l ed i nt ri ns i c or e x t r i ns i c ) , m i s r e pr e s e n t a t i o n, o rmi s c on duc tby an oppos i ng pa rty; ( 4 ) the j udg m e nti s vo i d; ( 5) the j udgm en tha s be ens at i s fi ed, r el ea s ed o r di s c har ge d; i ti s bas ed o n an ea rl i erj udgm en t thatha s be enr eve rs ed o r vac at ed; or appl yi ng i tpr os pec t i vel y i s no l onge r equi t abl e; or (6 ) a n y o th er re a so n th a t ju sti fie s re lie f. F ed . R . C iv . P . 60 (b ). F ed era l R u le of C iv il Pro ced u re 59 (e) p ro v id es: “A m otio n to 5 al t eror am en d a ju d g m en tm us tbe fi l ed n o l at erthan28 days a fte r t h e e n tr y o f th e ju d g m en t.” T he p lain tiffs’ m otio n fo r r e con sid era tion states tha t it i s brou g ht un der Rul e 60 ( b)

. A m ot i on underRul e 60 ( b) s ee ks rel ie ffrom a j ud gm ent. The plaint iff s’ m oti on, how ever, rei ter
- (co n tin u ed ...) d ist ric t c ou rth eld th at th e m ot ion w as , in su b st an c e, a R u l e 5 9 ( e ) mo t i o n t o a l t e r o r a me n d i t s p r e v i o us s um m ar y j u d gm en t d e c isio n, seeF ed. R. Ci v. P. 5 9( e)
. The 510 N o. 10

- 2144

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 5 ates th at it s e e k s “reco nsid era tion ” from the d istrict cou rt in p art b eca u se of erro rs of law . A n e r r o r o f law is a b asis f or al t er ing or am en di ng the j udgm en tunde r Rule 59 ( e) , but iti s not e xp lici tl y recognize d as a basi s f or re li efund er R u le 60 (b ). SeeObri ec htv. R ae m isc h , 517 F. 3d 489, 493- 94 ( 7th Cir

. 2008)
. Th e plai nti ff s als o fil ed thei r m oti on f or re consi derat i on withi n the ti m e al l owed unde r Rule 59 ( e)
. Acc or di ngl y, we a g ree w i th the di s t ri c tc our tthatthe s ubs t anc e ofthe m ot i on re veals th at i ti s a Rule 59 ( e) m ot i on t o a l t eror am en d a j ud gm ent. O n app eal, neither party conte st s the charact eri zatio n o f th e m o tio n as a m o tio n u n d er R u le 59 (e). m oti on m ai ntai ned that the g ra nt o f s u m m ar y j ud gm ent for copyri ght infr i ngem ent a nd co nver si on was a ma n i fe s te r r o r o ff a c ta n d l a w. The dis tr i ct c ourtdeni ed the m oti on for r eco nsi derati o n. Reg ar di ngthe c o py r i g hti nfr i ng ementc l ai m , the dist ri ct cour t rul ed that the pla i nti ff s i m proper l y i n tr odu ced new ar gum ents i n their m oti on a nd r el i ed on previ ousl y a vai l abl e authori ty. The di str i ct c ourtr efused to consi der these add i ti onal m ate ri al s and fou n d that the pl ai nti ff s’ r em ai ni ng ar gu m en ts w er e dupli cati ve of tho s e tha ta l r e a dy h a d b e e n r a i s e d a nd r ej e c t e d. R egard ing the conv ersion claim , the d istri ct cou rt woul d no tc o n s i d e r th e “ n e w” e v i d e n c e p r o ffe r e d b y the p lain tiffs to sh ow co n ve rs ion of ta n gib le a n d int an gib le pr o per ty ; the se i te m s ha d no t be enment i o ne d in the sum m ar y j ud gm ent b ri efi ng norhad theybee n i ncl ud ed i n the pri or evi denti ar y subm i ssi on. A dd i ti onal l y, Pro fessorH o had s ta te d , in hi s deposi ti on, thatno i tem s hadN o. 10

- 2144 11 been physi cal l y t ake n fro m him . The di str i ct c ourtal so o bs er ve d no e r r o r i n i ts a l te r na ti ve ho l di ngthat the C o p y r i g h tA c tp r e e mp t e d th e c o n v e r s i o n c l a i m. Pr o fe s s o r Ho a n d Ms
. Hu a n g t i me l y a p p e a l e d t he di st r i ctc o ur t’ s dec i si o n.

II DI S C US S I ON Pro fess orH o and M s. H uang subm it th at the di str i ct c ou rterr ed in g ra n tin g s u m m ar y jud gm en t o n th eir cl ai m s o fc o py r i g hti nfr i ng em en t, co nv er si o n, fr au d a nd tr ad e s ec re ts m isa p p ro p r i a t i o n an d als o th at it err ed in den y i ngthe i r mot i o n f o r r ec o ns i der at i o n.

A. S umma ryJ udg me nt “W e r evi ew a gr ant o fsum m ar y j ud gm ent de novo , const rui ng al l f acts i n the l i ght m ostf avora bl e” to P ro fes so r H o a n d M s. H u an g an d “d ra w in g a ll rea so n ab le i nfe re nces i n [ thei r] f avo r. ” O gden v. Atte rholt, 60 6 F
. 3d 355, 35 8 ( 7th Cir. 2 01 0)
. S um m ar y j ud gm ent i s a pp ro pr i at e “i f th e m o va nt sh o ws th at th er e i s no gen ui ne d ispu te as to an y m aterial fact.” Fed. R. C iv. P. 56(a). T he pa rty m oving for su m m ary j ud gm en t “ alw ays bea rs th e initi al r esp ons ibi li ty” of show ing “ th e absen ce of a genui ne is sue o fm ate ri alf act. ” C el otex C orp. v. C atre tt, 47 7 U
. S. 31 7, 32 3 ( 1986 )
. O n ce “ a pro perl y s up port ed m oti on f orsum m ar y j ud gm ent i s m ade, ” the non m ov i ng par ty be ar s th e bur dent o “ se t f o r ths pec i fic facts s ho wi ng12 N o. 10

- 2144 that ther e i s a ge nuine i ssue f ortr i al

. ” A nders on v. Libe rty L ob b y, Inc. , 47 7 U.S
. 24 2, 25 0 ( 1986 ) ( i nter nal quotat i on m ar k s an d c i ta ti o n omi tt ed)

. N o tabl y, a ny pa r tya ss er ting that a f act i s o r i s no t g enui nel y d i sputed m ust ci te “to parti cul arpart s o fm ate ri al s in the re cor d,” o r sh ow that “an a dvers e par ty cannot produce adm i ssibl e e vi d en ce to supp or t the f act. ” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56( c) ( 1)
. Thu s, “a party op p osing a p rop erly su p p orted m otion for su m m ary j u d gm en t m ay not re st upon m er e a l l ega ti on o r denia ls ofhi s pl eadi ng. ” Ande rson , 477U .S. at 2 56 ; see also Cle ve l and v. Por ca Co. , 38 F. 3 d 289, 295 (7th Cir. 1994). A d d itio n ally , a “c ou rtn ee d c on sid er o n ly th e c ite d m at er ials. ” Fed

. R. Civ. P. 56(c)( 3). Pro fess orH o and M s. H uang chal l enge the di str i ct cour t’ s g ra nt o fsum m ar y j ud gm en t in fa voro fthe defen dan t o n th ei r co py r i g ht i nfr i ng ement, conv er si o n, f r a u d a n d t r a d e s e c r e t s mi s a p p r o p r i a t i o n c l a i ms . We addr es s ea chc l ai m i n tur n.

1. Cop yri gh t Infri n gem en t C laim I n gr an tings um m ar y j udg m en t, the di st r i ctc o urt ac ce pte d Pr o fes so r Ta fl o ve and M r . Chang ’ s v i ew tha t th e al l eg edl y c o pi ed m at er i al s wer e no t pr o te ct ed bythe Copyri ght Act bec ause the M od eli s a n i dea. S peci fi cal l y, acco rdi ng to the defe nd ants, the M od el i s “ a new m athem at ica l m od el of h ow ele c tr on s b eh av e u n d er ce rt ain ci rcum sta nces. ” R.8 1 at 7. M or eov er, the equati on, fi gure s and text ar e the o nl y ways to ex p re ss this i dea, and so , und erthe m er gerdoctr i ne, thes e e xpressi ons are not copyr i ghtabl e.N o. 10

- 2144 13 Pro fess orH o and M s. H u an g counter, i n thei r re sponse to th e s u m m ar y jud gm en t m ot ion an d n ow on ap p ea l, that the nature ofthe M odeli s fi cti ti ous b ecause i t describes reality un d er hypo t he t i ca l co nd i tio n s; acc or dingl y, all o ft h e M od el’s ex p re ss ion s a re p ro te c te d . In th eir s ummar y j ud g men t fi l i ng s , ho we v e r, the y f a i l ed to ad d ress w he th er the eq ua tions, figur es an d text are th e o n ly p os sib le e x p re ss ion s o f th e M od el. Pro tect i on under the Cop yri ght Act i s s ubj ect to sta tutor y e xcepti ons. S ecti on 1 02(b) o fthe Copyri ght Act provi des that : I n no c ase does co pyri ght pr ote cti on f oran or i gi nal work ofautho rs hi p extend to any i dea, pr o ce dur e, pr o ce ss , s yste m , meth o d o fo per at i o n, co nc ept, pri nc i pl e, o r di sc o ve r y, r eg ar dl es s o fthe f or m i n w hi ch i t i s described, expla i ned , i ll ustr ate d, orem bodi ed i n such w or k. 17U. S
. C. § 1 02 ( b)

. W e ha ve de sc r ibed § 10 2(b) o fthe Copyrigh t Act as codi fyi ng a “f act- express i on di chotom y. ” A m er ican D ent al Ass’ n v. D el ta D ent al Plans Ass’ n , 126 F. 3d 977, 98 1 ( 7th Ci r. 19 97)
. I n essen c e, “t he Copyri ght Act pro tect s the expre ssi on ofi deas, but exem pts th e i deas them sel ves f ro m pro tect i on. ” Wi l dl i f eExpress C orp. v. Ca rol Wright Sale s, Inc. , 18 F. 3d 502, 5 0 7 ( 7 t h Cir. 1994 )
. Thi s l i m i tat i on o n copyr i ght protecti on pro m ote s th e pu rp ose of t h e C op yright A ct by ass uring “au th ors the ri g htt o the i r o r i g i na l e xp r e s s i o n, ” b uta l s o by “e nc o ur ag [ i ng ] o th er s to b ui l d fr ee ly u po n the i dea s an d i nfo rm atio n conve yed bya w or k. ” Fe i s tPub l ’ ns, Inc . v. Rur al Tel
. Se r v. C o. , 499 U .S. 34 0, 34 9-5 0 (1 99 1); see also14 N o. 10

- 2144

Prof es sor H o and M s. H uang m aint ain that the i nfri nged w ork 6 enj oys a pres um ption ofprotec tab il ity because they obtained certifica tes of cop y rig ht for th at w or k

. T he y can ow n v alid c opyr i ght s i n a work, butthatwork m ay c ont ai n f ac t s an d i dea s thatare no ts ubj ec tt o c opyr i ght

. M or eo ver, the y m i s underst and the pres um ption: O w ners hip ofa c opy ri ght cr eate s a p re su m p tio n o f v alidity ofthe copyright, not that an i nf ri ngem en t of th a t co p y ri g h t o c cu rr ed

. SeeJ C W Inv. , Inc. v. Novel ty, Inc. , 482 F. 3d 910, 9 1 4 -1 5 ( 7th Cir

. 2007) ( “The ow ner ofa c opy rig h t m a y obtain a cer ti fic ate ofcopyright, w hich is ‘p ri m a fac ie ev id en ce ’ of its v a lid ity .”). Wi l dl i f e E xpre s s Corp. , 18 F .3d at50 7; E ri ckson v. Trinity Thea tre, Inc ., 13 F. 3d 1061 , 10 69 ( 7th Ci r. 19 94)
. U nd er th e m er ge r d oc tr in e, w h en “t h er e is on ly on e fe as ible w ay ofe xp r e s s i nga n i de a , s o tha ti fthe e xp r e s s i on w er e co pyri ghtabl e i t would m ean that the i dea was c op yr igh ta b le, ” th e e x p re ss ion is n otp ro te c te d

. B uc k lew v. Hawkin s, A sh, Bapt i e& Co. , LL P , 32 9 F
. 3d 923, 92 8 ( 7 th Ci r . 2 0 0 3 )
. T hu s , e v e n tho ugh a n i nd i v i du a l can have a v al i d copyr i ght in a docum ent, f acts and i deas conta i ned i n the docum ent ar e not subj ect to copyri ght. SeeAm er ican D ent al Ass’ n , 12 6 F
. 3d at 979. 6 The f act- express i on di st in cti on in copyr i ght pr ote cti on ha s r o o t s i n th e Na t i o n ’ s j u r i s p r u d e n c e th a tg o b a c kl o ng b efo re th e C op yr igh t A c t o f 19 76
. See M azer v. Ste in , 34 7 U
. S. 201, 21 7- 18 ( 1954 ) ( sta ti ng tha t “ [ copyr i ght] pro tecti on i s g i ven o n ly to the e xpressi on o fthe i dea

— no t th e idea i tself” and discu ssing p r e -C op yright A ct cas es). In d ee d , th e S u p r em e C ou rtrec og n ize d th is d ich ot om y in B a k er v. Selden , 1 0 1 U. S
. 9 9 , 1 0 3 ( 1 8 7 9 ) , a nd e xp l ai nedN o. 10

- 2144 15

SeeNash v. C BS , Inc. , 899 F. 2d 1 5 3 7, 1540- 41 ( 7th Cir

. 1990) 7 (d isc u ssi n g th e fa ct -ex p re ssi o n d ic h o to m y ). the r ati onal e forl i m i ti ng co pyri ght pr ote cti on in cert ain ar eas : The copyr i ght ofa w or k on m athem ati calsci ence c annot gi ve to the a uthoran e xcl usi ve ri ght t o the m etho ds of oper ati on w hi ch he pro pound s, o r t o th e d i a g r a ms wh i c h h e e mp l o y s t o e x p l a i n th e m, so as to preve nt an engi neerfrom usi ng the m w henevero ccasi on r equi re s. The ve ry obj ect of pu bl i shi ng a boo k o n sci ence orthe useful ar ts i s t o com m unica te to the w or l d the use ful knowle dge w hi ch i t co ntai ns. But th is obj ect w oul d be frustr at ed i fthe kno wl edg e co ul d no t be us ed wi th o ut i nc ur r i ngthe g ui l t o fpi r ac y o fthe b ook. And wher e th e ar t i t te aches canno t be us ed wi th o ut em plo yi ng the m et hods and dia gr am s use d to i l l u s t r a t e th e b o o k, o r s u c h a s a r e s i mi l a r t o th e m, su c h m etho ds and diag ra m s a re to be consi dered as necess ar y inci dents to the ar t, and gi ven there

w i th to the pu bl i c; notgi ven forthe p u rp ose o f publi ca ti o n in o th erwor k s ex pl an at o r y o fthe ar t, b utf o r the pur po se o fpr ac ti ca l a ppl i ca ti o n. W e h av e re c og n ize d th at th e C ou rt ’s e x p lan at ion in B a k eris refle c te d in § 10 2(b ) of th e C op yr igh t A c t. See A m er ican D ent al Ass’ n , 12 6 F
. 3d at 981. A l though th e li ne be tw een a n expres si on a nd an i dea can be di fficu lt to deter m i ne atti m es, we do not bel i eve 716 N o. 10

- 2144 th at th e record i n th is case p resen ts a p ar t ic u la rly d if

fi cul t si tu at i o n. The M o deli s ani dea

. I n P r o fes so r Ho an d M s. H u an g’s o w n w or d s, th e M od el “ m im ic[s ] .
. . ce rt ain b eh av iors of m illion s o f p ar tic l es in a p h ot on ic d ev ice .” A pp el l ants’ Br. 4. That i s, the M odelat tem pts t o repr ese n t a n d d es c r i b e r ea lity for s c ien tific p u rp os es . Th is scien tific reality w as no t created by the plaintiff s. R ath er, th e M od el e m b od ies ce rt ain n ew ly d isc ov er ed sc ien tific pri nci ple s. Grante d, as the pl ai nti ff s no te, the M odel m ake s ce rt ai n hypothet i calas sum ption s, but tho se hypotheti calas sum pti ons do not re nd erthe M odelfi cti ti ous. Rather, the M odelst ri ves to describe r eali ty, and, as c on c ed ed atora l arg u m en ts , th e v a l u e o f th e M od el is its ab ility to ac c u ra te ly m im ic n a tu re . See G a tes R ubb er Co
. v . Ba n d o C h e m. In d u s . , L t d. , 9 F. 3d 823, 84 2- 43 ( 10th C ir. 19 93) ( “The co nstants i n the Desi gn F l ex pro gr am r e pr e s e ntsc i e nt i fi c o b s e r v a t i o ns o fp hy s i c a l r e l a t i o ns hi ps co nc erni ngthe l o ad th ata pa r ti cul arbel t ca n c ar r y a r o und cer tai n siz ed gear s a t ce rt ai n speeds g i ven a num ber ofo ther var i abl es. These r el ati onshi ps ar e no t invented o r c r e a t e d; the y a l r e a dy e xi s ta nd a r e me r e l y o b s e r v e d, disc ove re d a nd re cor ded

. Such a disc ove ryd oe s not g i v e r i s e t o c o p y r i g h tp r o t e c t i o n . ” )
. A s th e S u p r e me Cou r t puti t i n Fe i s tPub l i cat i ons, Inc . v. Rural Te l ephon e Se rvic e Co. , 49 9 U.S
. 34 0, 34 7 ( 1991 ) , “ f a c t s d o n o to we th ei r o r i g i n to an a cto fa utho r sh i p. The di st i nc ti o n i s o ne between cr eat i on a nd d i sco ver y: The fi rs t per son to fi nd and re porta p ar ti cul arf act has no t cr eat ed the f act; h e o r sh e h as m er ely d isc ov er ed its ex ist en c e.” Profes s o r H o a nd M s. H ua ng rel y on tw o cases that are not re l evantto thi s a pp ealbec ause they i n vo lve al l ege dN o. 10

- 2144 17 copyi ng o fthe cre ati ve prese ntati on , n ot the s ubstance , o f f a c t s o r i d e a s . I n Fl i ck

- Ree dy Corp
. v. Hydro- Li neM anu f ac t ur i ng Co. , 3 51 F. 2d 54 6, 5 48 ( 7th Ci r . 1 96 5) , the pl aint i ffc lai m ed th atthe de fen dan t ha d c o pi ed th e “e xpr es si o n a nd pr es en ta ti o n ofthe c o m put at i o ns , f o r m ul ae and explanat i ons. ” W e c oncl ud ed that the “ ar ra ngem en t, e xpr es si o n a nd manne r o fpr es en ta ti o n” o fthe m at hem ati caldata coul d be pro tect ed by copyr i ght, ev en i fthe e qua ti o ns a nd form ul ae the m se l ve s wer e i n the p u b lic d om ain
. Id. S pec i fi ca l l y, we co m m en te d on the col or i ng, wordingan d l oca ti on o fti tl es and type o f sh adingus ed bythe pa r ti es . I n sho r t, the i ss ue i n Fl i ck

Ree dycent er ed ar ound the cr eat i ve ar ra ngem ent, expre ssi o n a nd manner of pr es en ta ti o n, a nd we wer e no t co ncer ned w i th wh etherthe substa nce o ft h e m athem ati cal data was co pyri ghtabl e. S i mi l a r l y, i n Sit uat i on M anag e m e ntSy s t e m s , Inc . v. ASP Cons ul t i ng LLC, 56 0 F.3d 5 3 (1 st Cir
. 20 09) , o ur co l l eagues i n the Fi rs t Ci rcui t co n c lu ded thatm ate ri al s use d to tr ai n em plo yee s in com m unica ti on a nd nego ti ati on sk i l l s wer e su bj ec t to the Co py r ight Act as e xpr es si o ns o fa pr o ce ss o r s y st em. The c o ur t o bs er ve d tha t th e pla i nti ffm ade “cr eat i ve choi ces i n descr ibi ng tho se process es and syst em s, i ncl ud i ng the works ’ o ver al l ar ra ngem ent a nd st ructur e. ” Id. at61
. I n thi s ca se , b y c o nt r as t, Profess o r Ho an d M s. Huang d o n otco n te n d th at th e d efe n d an ts ap p ro p ria te d th eir cr ea ti ve pr es en ta ti o n o fthe M o delthr o ug h c o py i ng su cha spe cts as th e co l o r o r f o nte m pl o y ed bythe pl ainti ff s. Rather, the pla i nti ff s co nten d t h at the de-18 N o. 10

- 2144 fendants co pie d the subs tanceof the e quati ons, fi gure s an d te x t. See R. 82, Ex. D ( H uang D ep .) a t 2 65- 67 ( M s. H uang affi rm in g th at the c opyi ng o fthe substa nce of the M od el, not its prese nt ation, w as w ha t m attered ). U nl i k e th e pl aint i ff s i n Fl i ck

- Ree dya nd Si t uat i on M a na gem en t Syste m s, Inc. , Pr ofe ss or H o a n d M s. H u an g c laim a co pyri ght inter esti n the subs tance

— not p re se ntati on

— ofthe equati ons, fi gure s a nd te xt. O n ap p e al, P ro fes so r H o a n d M s. H u an g m ain ta in th atthe r e ar e numer o us w ays to e xpr es s th e M o dela nd th e r e f o r e th a t, a s a c o n s e q u e n c e , th e me r g e r d o ct r i ne d oes not ap p ly. Th e plain t if fs, how ever, f ail ed to sup p ort su fficie n tly th is a rg u m en t b efo re th e d ist r i c t c ou rtin thei r sum m ar y j ud gm ent fi l i ngs. I n t hei r sum m ar y j ud gm en t paper s, the pla i nti ff s o ffer ed no e vi dence ofhow th e M o del co ul d be ex pr es se d th r o ug h o th er equ ati o ns o r f i g ur e s . E q u a t i o n s a n d fi g u r e s a r e c o mmo n c o mponents o fm athem ati calsci ence used to depic t i deas. Al th o u g h e q u a t i o n s c anb e r e a r r a n g e d th r o u g h th e l a ws of m ath em atics, th e sub stan ce of the e q u a t ion nev erth el es s r emai ns the s ame. W i th o uta ny e vi den ce tha t th e M odelco uld be expre sse d by e quati ons and fi gure s othe r than tho se used by the pl ai n tiffs, we concl ud e that these equati ons and fi gure s a re “ r e q ui r edby ” t h e M od el, seeWi l dl i

f eExpre s s Corp. , 18 F. 3d at 508 ( em phasi s in or i gi nal ) , and as such, ar e no t s ubj ect to copyr i ght. W h et h er te x t, as op p os ed to equ at ion s a n d figu r e s, is re q u ire d b y th e M od el or h as oth er p os sib le e x p re ss ion s is a m o r e di ffi cul t que st i o n. W e ha ve r ec o g ni ze d tha t te xt describi ng sc i enti fi c i dea s m ay be s ubj ect to copyr i ght.N o. 10

- 2144 19

I n th e i r s u mm a r y j u dg me n t p a p e r s a n d o n a p p e a l , t he 8 plaint iff s m aint ained thatthe re ar e m ulti ple w ays ofex pre s s i ng the M odel

. Thi s bl ank ets t at em en ts ee m s to c ove r the exp ression s of the M od el w he the r in equ atio ns, figu res, or text. I n th ei r su m m a ry ju d g m en t p a p er s, h o w ev er , th e p la in tiffs of fered no exam ples ofal ter nati ve expres si ons or any other fur the r el abor at i on. In thei r m ot i on f or r ec ons i der at i on and on appe al, the p lain t i ff s offers eve ra l e xa m pl es ofho w th e te xt co u ld h a v e b ee n w ri tt en d iffer en tly

. S eeR. 1 2 6 , E x . 1 K. See A m er ican D ent al Ass’ n , 126 F .3 d a t 979 (“E instein’s ar ti cl es l aying o ut the speci aland ge nera l theo ries o f r el at i vi tywer e o r i g i na l wor k s ev entho ug h manyo fthe cor e e quati ons, such a s the f am ou s E =m c , expre ss ‘ f acts ’ 2 an d th er efo r e a re n otco p yr igh ta b le.” ). H er e a s w ell, h ow ev er , th e p lain tiffs d id n otra ise ad eq u at ely th is ar gum ent in th eir sum m a ry ju dg m ent p a pers . Pro fess or 8 T afl ove an d M r. Ch an g m aintain ed i n th eir su m m ary j udg m en t m o ti o n tha t the a l l eg edl y c o pi ed te xtwas “ o ne of on ly a few ways . . . to expre ss” the M odel

. R. 81 at 8. Professor H o and M s. H ua ng f ail ed to refut e tha t asserti o n i n th ei r r es po ns e to th e su m m ar y j udg m en t m oti o n. I n f act, befor e the di strict cour t, the pla i nti ff s obser ved th at“ [ i ] t i s i r r el ev an t to c o py r i g htr i g ht s whethe r the express i on i s in w or ds or m athem ati calsy m bol s, j ust a s an autho r’ s cho i ce o fthe En gl i sh o r G er m an l anguage i s i rr el evantto co pyri ghtabi l i ty.” R .91 at 6. Exactl y ho w the t ext, defi ni ng the variabl es and offer i ng te chnic al ex p la n a tio n s, co u ld h av e b ee n ex p re ss ed d iffer en tly is unc lear. Thus , i n the i r s um m ar y j udg m en t m o ti o ns , the pl ainti ff s f ai l ed to sho w thatthe textati ssue i s o ne o f20 N o. 10

- 2144

m an y po ss ibl e ex pr es si ons . B as ed o n the na tu r e o fthe M od eland the pla i nti ff s’ f ai l ure to ra i se ar gum ents adeq u a t e l y a n d t o p r o v i d e s p e c i fi c e v i d e n c e in th e i r s u mm ar y jud gm en t filin gs , th e d is t r i c t c ou rtd id n oterr in concl ud i ng tha t the equati ons, fi gure s a nd te xt w er e not subj ect to copyr i ght.

2 . S t a t e L a w C l a i ms Pr o fes so r H o a nd M s. Huanga l so s ee kr ev i ew o fthe dist ri ct c ourt ’ s di sposi ti on of t h re e s tat e l aw cl ai m s for co nv er si o n, fr au d a nd t r ade s ec rets m i sa ppr o pr i at i o n. The dis tr i ct c ourt h eld thatal l o fthe pla i nti ff s’ st ate l aw c laim s a re p re em p te d u n d er th e C op yr igh t A c t, an d in th e al te r na ti ve , tha t ea chs ta te l aw c l ai m f ai l s o n the m er i ts. W e s ha l l c o ns i derfi r stthe e xt en t to whi chthe Copyri ght Act pree m pts the pl ai nti ff s’ st ate l aw cl ai m s; w e t h en sh all ex am in e t h e m er its of an y s ta t e law cla im not preem pted by the Copyri ght Act.

a. Pr eemp t i on W e r evi ew de novo wh etherthe Copyri ght Act pree m pts an y of t h e p lain tiffs ’ st at e la w cla im s. Se eToney v . L’ O r e al USA, Inc. , 4 06 F. 3d 905, 90 7- 08 ( 7th Ci r. 20 05)
. The Copyri ght Act pree m pts “a l l l ega l and equi tabl e r i ghts that ar e equi va l en t to any o fthe e xc l us i ve r i g ht s wi th i n the gener alsco pe ofco pyri ght a s s peci fi ed by se cti on 1 06” a n d a r e “ i n a t a n g ib l e me d i u m o fe x p r e s s i o n a n d c o me w i thi n the subj ect m att ero fco p yr i ght a s s peci fi ed by sect i ons 102 and 103. ” 1 7 U.S
. C. § 3 01( a)
. W e hav eN o. 10

- 2144 21 dis t i l l e d fr o m t he l a ngua g e o f§ 3 0 1 t wo e l e men t s : “ Fi rs t, th e wo r k i n whi c h the r i g ht i s a s s e r t e d mus t be fi xed i n tang ibl e form and com e withi n the subj ect m att ero f copyr i ght a s s peci fi ed i n § 1 02. Se cond, the ri ght m ust b e equi val ent to any of the ri ghts speci fi ed i n § 10 6.” B a ltim o re O r io les, Inc . v. M ajo r Leagu e B a sebal l P la yers A ss ’n , 805 F.2d 663 , 674 (7th C ir. 1986).
( 1 ) T a ng i bl e Med i um Regar ding the fi rs t el em ent, w e note that th e m at er i al i n w hi ch the pla i nti ff s a sse rtr i ghts

— the M odeland i ts m an i fes ta ti o ns i n e qua ti o ns , fi g ur es a nd t ex t

— ar e e xpressi ons i n a t a ng ib l e f o r m. T he s e e xp r e s s i o ns e v e n o r i gi nate i n tang ibl e work s that a re co pyri ghted

— nam el y, M s. H ua ng’ s m ast er ’ s thesi s a nd Pro fess orH o’ s no teb oo ks . B ec au se th e ex p re ss ion s o f th e M od el a re in t a ng ib l e ma t e r i a l s , the fi r s te l e men ti s s a t i s fi e d.
( 2 ) E qui v a l e ntRi g ht The seco nd el em ent for p re em pti on i s that the r i ghts i n the sta te l aw cl ai m s be equi val ent t o the e x c lusi ve r i g ht s unde r th e Copy r i ghtAct
. W e su m m ar i ze d the ri ghts ofa copyr i ght own er, detai l ed i n § 106 of the Copyr ight Act, t o b e “r epr o duct i o n, a dapt at i o n, pub l i ca ti o n, perf or m ance, and dis pla y” oft h e copyr i ghted work

. To n ey, 40 6 F
. 3d at 909. A well

- re specte d tre ati se has el abo r at ed o n thi s co nc epta l o ngthe s ame l i ne s, no ting that equi val ent r i gh ts exi st “i funder s tat e l aw the act of r epr o duct i o n, pe r f o r m an ce , di st r ibut i o n, o r di spl ay, no22 N o. 10

- 2144

O the r ci rc uits have com e t o a s im il ar c onclus ion that wh en 9 ri ght s ar e as s er t ed i n un c opyr i ght ed e xpr es s i ons i n a c opyr i g h t e d wo r k , th e Co p y r i g h tAc ts t i l l c a n p r e e mpts t a t e l a w. (co n tin u ed ...) m at te r w h et h er th e la w inc lu d es all su c h ac ts or on ly so m e , w ill in i ts el

f i nfr i nge the st ate
- cre ate d ri ght. ” 1 M elv i lle B . N im m er & D av id N im m er , N i m m e ron C opy right § 1.01[B][1] (2010) (em p ha sis in or ig inal). “[T]o avo i d p r e e mpt i o n, a s t a t e l a w mus tr e g ul a t e c o nd uc tthat i s qual i tat i vel y di stingui sh able f ro m thatgo ver ned by federa l co pyri ght l aw —i
. e. , co nd uct o therthan re productio n, ad ap ta tio n, pu b lica tio n, pe rfo rm an c e , an d d isp lay .” To ney, 40 6 F
. 3d at 910. W e hav e co ncl ud ed that the m ate ri ali n dis pu te

— the equa ti o ns , fi g ur es a nd t ex t

— a r e n o tc o p y r i g h t ab l e . Ho weve r, the Copyri ght Act can preem pt sta te l aw ev en w hen the ri ghts ar e cl ai m ed i n uncopyri ghted o r uncopyri ghtabl e m ate ri al s. W e a ccepted thi s pos sibi l i ty i n B a ltim o re O rio les, Inc . v. M ajo r Leagu e B a sebal l P la yers Ass oc i at i on , 80 5 F
. 2d 663, 67 6 ( 7th Ci r. 19 86) , wh e n we det er m ined th atpr ee m pti o n a ppl i ed ev entho ug h the ri ghts w er e a ss er ted i n w or k that was uncopyr i ghtabl e. A gai n, i n To ney, w e n o t e d th a t“ s t a t e l a ws th a ti nt r ud e on th e d om ain o fc o p yr igh t a re p re em p te d ev en if the par ti cul are x p re ssi on i s nei therco pyri ghted nor copyr i ghtabl e. ” 4 06 F. 3d at 911. I n the Copy rig ht A ct, Co ng r e s s s o ughtto ensur e tha ta s t a t e wi l l n o tp r o v i de “c op yr igh t-lik e p ro te c tio n s in m a t e r ials ” t h at sh ou ld re m ain u n c op yr igh te d or u n c op yr igh ta b le. Id. 9N o. 10

- 2144 23

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 9 N at ’ l Basket bal l A ss ’ n v. M ot or ol a, Inc. , 105 F. 3d 841, 849 ( 2d Ci r. 19 97 ) ( “Copyr i ght abl e m at er i al oft enc ont ai ns unc opyri ghtable el em ents w ithin i t, but Secti o n 301 p reem ption bars state law

. . . claim s w ith resp ect to u nc op y rig hta b l e a s w ell a s c o p y r i g h ta b le el em en ts.” ); R
. W
. Beck, Inc. v. E3 C onsul t i ng, LLC , 57 7F .3d 11 3 3 , 11 4 6 -4 7(10 th C ir . 20 0 9 ) (sam e). I n thei r m oti on f orsum m ar y j ud gm ent, the defe nd ants assert tha t a ll ofthe p lai nt iffs’ state l aw clai m s are “alternati ve l ega l theor i es f orr eco ver y” base d on the al l ege d c op yin g, R .81 at13 , an d th e d efe n d an ts cit e e x te n siv ely to the plain ti ff s’ co m pla i nt as ev i dence. W e co nsi der separ ate l y whether each sta te l aw c laim chal l enged o n appe ali s ba se d o n a r i g ht equi va l en t to tho se unde r the Copyri ght Act.
( a) Conver si on The com p l ai nt, with r espectto co nver si on, st ate s that the “Defe nd ants m isa pp rop ria ted the w or ks by pub l i s hi ng said w o r k s a nd text s . . . and De fend an ts p assed off sa id w or ks an d te x t a s t h eir ow n w ith ou t g ivin g c re d it to P l a i n t i f fs.” R .1 at 14 (em p h as is a d d ed ). In th eir r es po ns e to the s um m ary j udg m en t m o ti o n, the pl aintiffs ela b or at e t h at “[b ]y p as sin g offth e w or ks as th eir own i n num er ous s ci enti fic p ubl i cati ons, Defendants w ro ngfully a nd witho ut autho ri zati on a ssum ed contr ol ove r them , wh i ch i s a cti onabl e co nver si on. ” R. 91 at 12. Th e c o n v e r s i o n c l a i m, th e n, i s f o c u s e d o n th e d e fe ndan ts ’ una utho r i ze d pub li shi ng, no t po ss es si o n, o fthe24 N o. 10

- 2144 prot ecte d w or k. Because p u b lishi ng i s a r i ght under the Co py r i g htAc t, the c o nv e r s i o n c l a i m i s p r e e mpt e d. The pl aint i ff s r ely o n B il ut v. Northwest er n U niversi ty, 692 N
. E.2 d 1 327 ( I l l

. A pp . Ct. 1998 ) , as supp or t fo r thei r conte n tio n that a conve rs i on cl ai m i s no t p re em p te d by th e C op yr igh t A c t. W e c an n otac c ep t t h is a r g u me n t. I n Bil ut, the pla i nti ffal l ege d “l oss o fphysi cal c o nt r o l o v e r h e r r e s e a r c h pr oj e c t, ” id. a t 13 35 , c l ai m i ng that her profess or“ u su rped” heri deas a nd then proh ibit ed h er from co n d u c t in g a st u d y, i d. a t 13 33
. The pl aint i ff’ s cl ai m o fc o nv er si o n in Bil utw entb ey o nd the publ i ca ti o n o fa n i dea

. I n thi s ca se , how ev er, the pl aint i ff s h a v e a l l e g e d c onver si o n b a s e d sole lyo n the de fen dan ts ’ pub l i sh i ngthe i nf o r m at i o n wi th o uta tt r ibut i o n. The prese nt cas e i s m uch m or e l i ke the s i tuati on that co nfr o nt ed o urc o l l ea g ue s i n the F o ur thCi r cui t i n U nited St at e s ex. rel B ergev. Boar d of Tr us t e e s of

t heU ni ve rs i ty of A l a b a ma , 104 F.3d 145 3 (4th C ir. 1997). T he re, the cou rt hel d that a cl ai m o fco nver sio n was pree m pted because a “ c h ar ge of p lag iar ism an d lac k o fa tt rib u tio n ca n on ly am ount t o, i nd eed, ar e t anta m ount t o, a cl ai m o fco pyri ght infr i ngem ent, f or[ th e p l ai nti ff ] has cer tai nl y no t b ee n p re ve n te d from u sin g h er ow n id ea s a n d m et h od s.” Id. at14 64. O n ap p e a l , P ro fes so r H o a n d M s. H u an g a lso res t t h eir conve rs i on cl ai m o n M r. C h ang’ s f ai l ure to re turn Pr ofessor H o ’ s 2 0 0 2 n o t e b o o k

. Y e t, the p l a i nt i ff s f a i l e d t o r a i se su ffi ci en tly thi s ar g um en t i n the i r s um m ar y j udg m en t pape r s. I n the i r r es po ns e to the s um m ar y j ud gm en t m oti o n, the p l a i nt i ff s s i mpl y ma de a g e ne r a l a s s e r t i onN o. 10

- 2144 25 th att an g ibl e pr o per tywas t ak enwi th o utpe r m i ss i o n, f o l l o we d b y a c i t a t i o n t o the i r s t a t e men to fa ddi ti onal f acts
. The st at em ent o faddit i onalf acts , however, does no t i den ti fy whatt an g ibl e pr o per tywas tak enwi th o ut perm i ssi on a nd m akes no m enti on o fthe 2002 not ebo ok i n part i cul ar . I t was i ncum bent on the pl ai n tiffs to id en tify w ith p ar tic u lar ity th e f a c tu al b as is for th eir c laim

. Se eAnde rs on , 47 7 U .S
. at25 0. They f ai l ed to do s o. W e th er efo r e m us t co nc l ude tha t, b as ed o n the pl aintiffs ’ su m m ar y jud gm en t filin gs , th e righ ts as se rt ed in the c onver si on cl ai m concerne d the m i sappropri ati on o f thei r w or k thro ugh publi cati on, wh i ch i s eq u iva l ent t o the r i ght t o contr olpubli cati on under the Copyri ght Act.
( b) F r a ud As a g en er al pr o po si ti o n, a cl ai m o f co m m o n law f ra ud i s no t pr ee m p ted by the Co py r i g htAct“ so l o nga s th e causes of acti on concerni ng them conta i n el em ents that ar e di ffer ent fro m co pyri ght infr i n ge m ent. ” A ll ie d Artis ts P ictu res Co rp. v. R ho des , 496 F. Su p p . 408 , 444 (S .D . Oh io 19 80 ), aff’d in p a rt, rem a nd ed in pa rt, 67 9 F.2d 65 6 ( 6th C ir. 19 82 ); see also V a lente-K ritz er Vid eo v . P inc k ney, 88 1 F.2d 772, 77 6 ( 9th Ci r. 19 89)
. A cl ai m o ffra ud can be, h ow ev er , a “d isg u ise d c o p yr igh t in frin ge m en t c laim ,” if the s ol e ba si s o fthe f ra ud cl ai m i s that a defendant r eprese n te d m at er ials as h is ow n . N i m m e r & N im m er , sup ra , § 1.01[B][1][ e]. He r e , the co mpl a i n ta l l e g e s th a tth e d e fe n d a n t s kn o wi ng l y pub l i sh ed m at er i alt ak enfr o m the pl aint i ff s an d that defe nd ants “fra ud ule n tl y r epres ented” that they26 N o. 10

- 2144

True “pa s s i ng o ff ” c l ai m s are notpr ee m pt ed by the Copyr i ght 10 Act, b u t th e “pa s s i ng o ff ” c l ai m al l eg ed by the pl ai nt i ff s i s no t of tha t va riety
. A s N im m er o n C op y rig ht exp lain s: [ T] he re i s no pr e- em pt i on ofthe s t at e l aw off ra ud, no r ofthe state l aw ofunf ai r c om pet i t i on ofthe “pa s s i ng o ff” v a ri et y . If A c l ai m s that B i s s el l i ng B ’ s pr od u cts and repres enti ng to the pu blicthatthe y are A ’ s, tha t is p a ssi n g o ff. If, b y co n tr a st, B i s s el l i ng B ’ s pr oduc t s an d repres enti ng to the pub li c that they are B ’ s , thati s no t p assing off

. A claim tha t the latter activ ity is actio na b le because B ’ s pr od u ct rep licates A ’ s, ev en ifdenom inat ed “passi ng off, ” i s in f acta disguis ed copy ri ght i nf ri ngem e ntc l a i m , a nd h e nc e pr e - e m pt e d. 1 M e l v i l le B . N im m er & D a v id N im m er , N i m m eron Copyright § 1.0 1 [B ][1][e ] (2 0 1 0 ); se e al so R
. W
. Beck, Inc. , 577 F. 3d at 1148 ( quo t i ng N i m m eron Copyright ). we r e the o r i g i na t o r s o fthe wo r k

. R
. 1 a t1 4
. Add i t i o nal l y, i n the i r r es po ns e to the s um m ar y j udg m en t m o ti o n, the pla i nti ff s a ss er ted that“Defendants have , i n ess ence,
‘ pas se d o ff’ Pl aint i ff s’ works as the i r o wn byus i ng [ 10] and repr esenti ng Pl ai nti ff s’ co pyri ghted m ate ri al s a s thei r own work, ” R. 91 a t 13, and that “pl agi ar i sm i s a t y p e o ffr a u d t h a ti s a c t i o n ab l e . ” R
. 9 1 a t1 2
. P r o fe s s o r Ho an d M s. Huang ’ s al l eg at i ons of fr au d the r efo r e amoun t t o a c l a i m th a tth e d e fe n d a n t s h a v e p u b l i s h e d wi th o ut att ributi on, ther eby m i sr epres enti ng the tr ue o ri gi ns o f th e w ork. Th e plaintiff s d o not allege in th eir su m m ary j udg m en t fi l i ng s a ny o th ermis r epr es en ta ti o n b y the defe nd ants. Because the fra ud cl ai m is b as ed o n the defendants’ i m properpubli shi ng al one, it i s pre em ptedN o. 10

- 2144 27

O n app eal, Prof es sor H o and M s. H uang al le ge prom is sory 11 f r a u d b a s e d o n Mr
. C h a n g ’ s p r o mi s e , wh e n h e l e ftP r o fe s s or H o’s g ro u p , n o t to use a ny of Pro fessor H o’s resea rch

. T his alleg ati on of prom is sory fraud , how ever, w as not m enti oned by the pl a int i ff s i n the i r s umm a r y j udg m e ntpa pe r s . Ac c or di ngl y, we c onc l ude thatthe Copy rig htActpr ee m pt s the pl ai nt i ff s ’ c l a i m o ffr a ud. b y t h e C o p y r igh t A c t. Se eR. W
. Be ck, Inc . v. E3 Cons ul t i ng, LLC, 5 7 7 F
. 3 d 1 1 3 3 , 1 1 4 8 ( 1 0 th C i r . 2 0 0 9 ) ( fi n d i n g t he pl aint i ff’ s f r au d c l ai m w as pr ee m pte d b ec au se “ [ t] he crux o fthe al l ega ti ons i s that [ the defend an t] r epres ented t o th e p u b l i c th a tth e r e p o r t s i td i s t r ib u t e d we r e i t s o wn w hen, i n f act, theywere copi es of[ the pl ai nti ff’ s] rep orts”). 11
( c) Tr ade Secr et s M i sappropr i at i on I n thei r com pla i nt, Pro fess orH o and M s. H uang al l ege tha tthe “ Def e nd a nt s mi s a pp r o pr i a t e d P l a i nt i ff s ’ t r a de secr ets.” R. 1 a t 1 5. I n thei r re sponse to sum m ar y j ud gm ent, theynot e that they “ too k s tep s t o kee p thei r w or ks secr et. ” R. 91 at 13. U nd erI l l i noi s l aw , the defin itio n o fa tr ade se cre t r equires thatthe i nfo rm ati on “ i s s uffi ci entl y s ecr et to der i ve e co no m i c va l ue ” an d i s su bj ec t to e ff o r ts “ to mai ntain its secrec y or con fi d en tiali ty.” 765 I L C S 1065/2(d ). A tr ade se cre t m i sappropri ati on invol ves the acqui si ti on ofa tr ade se cre t thro ugh i m p ro p er m eans, wh i ch re quir es the b re ac h o fa confi denti alr el ati onshi p oro ther d u ty to m ain ta in se c re c y. See 76 5 IL C S 1 06 5/ 2(a ), (b). A28 N o. 10

- 2144

Se e St r o mb a c kv. Ne w Li neCi ne ma , 384 F. 3d 283, 303- 04 ( 6th Cir

. 12 2 0 0 4 ) ( c i t i n g c a s e s , a c r o s s c i r c u i t s , w h i c h “ h a v e h e l d th a tc l a i ms bro ughtunde r s t at e t ra de s ec re tst atut es . . . sur vi ve pre em pt i on b ec a u se th e r eq u ir ed p ro o f o ft h e e xi ste n ce an d b re a ch o f a con fiden tial relatio nsh ip p r o v id es the ex tra elem en t nece ssa ry to su rv iv e p re em p tio n ” ). Se e a l s o Dab o ub v
. Gi bb o ns , 42 F. 3d 285, 289 ( 5th Cir

. 1995) 13 (find ing all of the p lain tiffs’ state l aw claim s pr eem p ted b eca u se “[t] he core of each of these state law theo ries of re c ov ery in thi s c as e . . . i s the s am e: the wron gful c opyi ng, di s t ribut i on, a n d p er fo rm a n ce o f th e l y ri cs o f [a so n g ]” ). cl ai m o ftr ade se cre t m i sa p p ro pri ati on, then, r equi re s tha t the i nfo r mat i o n ha v e a s t a t us o f s e c r e c y and that a co nfi denti al rel ati onshi p be br eached. Both o fthes e el em ents go beyo nd the ri ghts regul ate d und erthe Copyri g htAc t
. T he a c to fp ub l i s hingthe a l l e g e dl y co pie d

12 m ate ri al s would noti tse l fes tabl i sh a tr ade se cre ts m i sappropri ati on cl ai m . Because a cl ai m f ortrad e s ecr ets m i sappropri ati on r egul ate s co nd uct be yond t he r i ghts un de r the Co py r i g htAc t, i ti s n o tp r e e mpt e d. I n su m , P rofessor H o and M s. H ua ng ’s cl aim s of con versi on a nd fra ud as ser t the sa m e inter est s a s those under the Copyr i ght A c t: to co ntro l the pu bl i cati on o fthe copyri ghted work

. A ccor dingl y, the pla i nti ff s’ cl ai m s o f 13 conve rs ion and fra ud ar e pr eem pted und erthe Copyri ght Act, and w e a ffi rm the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s gr ant o f s ummar y j ud gm ent o n tha tb a s i s . Byc o nt r a s t, the t r a de secr ets cl ai m as ser ts a r i ght v ery di ffer ent fro m the ri ghts prot ecte d by the Copyri ght Act , and, ther ef or e, with re spect to that al l ega ti on, we cannot resto ur deci si onN o. 10

- 2144 29 on pre em pti on, but m ust rea ch the substa nti ve m er i ts o fth a ts t a t e c l a i m.
b. M er i t s o fth e T r ade Secr et s M i sappropr i at i on C laim Turningto the m er i ts ofthe tr ade se cre ts m i sappropri ati o n c lai m , th e pl aint i ff s ha ve f ai l ed to s ho w a g en ui ne dispute ofm ate ri alf act that, i fr eso l ved, would es tabli sh m i sappropri ati on o ftr ade se cre ts. I l l i nois l aw pro vi des the fol l owing defini ti on o f“t ra de sec re t”: ( d) “T r ade s ec r et” mean s i nf o r m at i o n, i nc l udi ng butn o tl i mi t e d t o , t e c hn i c a l o r n o n- t e c hni cal d a t a , a f o r mu l a , p a t t e rn, c o m p i l a t i o n, p r o g r a m, devi ce, m etho d, techn i que, drawing, pro cess , fi nanci aldata, or l i st ofactual o r potenti al custo m er s o r supp l i er s, that : ( 1) i s s uffi ci entl y s ecr et to d er i ve eco nom ic val ue, actual o r potenti al, fro m not bei ng g ener al l y know n to o ther p er so n s w h o c an ob ta in ec on om ic va l ue fr o m i ts di sc l o su r e o r us e; a nd ( 2) i s th e su bj ec t o fe ff o r ts tha t ar e r ea so nab l e unde r the ci r cumst an ce s to mai ntai n i ts secr ecy orco nfi denti al i ty. 765 I LC S 1065 /2

. I n the i rr es po ns e to the s um m ar y j ud g m en t m o ti o n, Pro fessorH o and M s. H uang m ai ntai ned that they had a va l i d t r a d e s e c r e t s mi s a p p r o p r i a t i o nc l a i m b e c a u s e t he30 N o. 10

- 2144 express i ons ofthe M odelhad “ ‘ actualo r potenti al ’ eco nom i c val ue” and b ecause “they too k ste ps to keep th eir w or ks secr et. ” R. 91 at 13. W e ne ed no t dec i de whethe r the ex p ress i o ns o fthe M od el h ad ec on om ic v alu e b ec au s e t h e p lain tiffs d id not show, i n thei r sum m ar y j ud gm ent paper s, that the e xpressi ons ofthe M odel h ad t he st atus ofse cre cy. Pro fess orH o and M s. H uang co ncede that“Pr ofess or H o ’ s r e s e a r c h r e s u l t s we r e p a r t i a l l y p u b l i s h e d i n a c o nfer en c e p ap er in 2 00 1 a n d th en p u b lish ed in m or e d et ail i n 200 2” i n M s. H uang’ s m ast er ’ s thesi s. R. 92 at 15. The pl ai nti ff s, ne ve r th el es s, o ffert wo r ea so ns why th e M o del h a d th e s t a t u s o fs e c r e c y ; b o th o fth e s e c o n t e nti o ns f a i l

. T he p l a i nt i ff s fi r s ts ub mi ttha t“ i ti s e xp ecte d that anyo ne r eadi ng tha t thesi s a nd usi ng the M odel w oul d at l eas t ci te the thesi s a s th e so u rc e o fthe expressi on o fthe M odel

. ” R. 91 at 13- 14. S uch an e x p ec tat i on o f a t t r i b u t i o n, h o we v e r, i s n o tp a r to fa t r a d e s e c r e t s mi s a pp ro pri ati on cl ai m . Once the posse sso r ofi nfo rm ati on i ntenti onal l y r el eas es that i nfo rm ati on , the posse sso r can no l onge r m ak e a succe ssful tr ade se cre ts m i sappropri ati on cl ai m bec ause th e inf or m ati on i s no t s ubj ect to re aso nabl e e ff or ts to m ai ntai n sec re cy. Pr o fes so r Ho an d M s. Huanga l so c o nt en d t ha t the defe nd ants used “m ate ri al s fro m H o’s copyr i ghted not eboo k that were not pu bl i shed. ” Id. a t 1 4
. As s up po r t f or thi s a sse rt i on, the p lai nti ff s point to thei r sta tem ent o f m aterial facts, w hich refers, i n t urn , to Professor H o’s affi davi t, subm i tte d as E xhibi t A to the pl ai nti ff s’ r esponse to the s um m ar y j ud gm ent m oti on. I n hi s a ffi davi t, Pro fes-N o. 10

- 2144 31

sorH o gener al l y a sse rt s that the defendants’ publi cat i o ns i nc l ud e d ma t e r i a l s fr o m o ne o fh i s c o py ri g ht e d, b u t u n p u b lish ed , n o t e b oo ks

. See R. 91 , Ex. A at9
. The affi davi t, however, does notspecify w hat m ate ri alal l egedl y was co pie d fr om Pro fess orH o’ s unpubli shed note

boo k, a s o pp o s e d t o tha t t a k e n f r o m Ms
. Hua ng ’ s publ i shed m ast er ’ s thesi s o r f ro m o ther p ubl i shed so urces . Se eAnde rs on , 47 7 U.S
. at25 6 ( “[ A ] party o pp os in g a pr o per l y s uppo r te d m o ti o n f o r s um m ar y j udg m en t m ay n otres t u p on th e m e r e a l l e g at ion s o r d en ials of h is pl ea di ng, b ut
. . . mustset forth s pec i fi c f ac ts s ho wi ng that ther e i s a ge nuine i ssue f ortr i al

. ” ( i nter nal qu ot at ion m ar ks om itt ed )); Porc a Co. , 3 8 F
. 3d at2 95 ( fi ndi ngthe ass er ti on o fbad fa ith al l ege d i n an affi davi t a nd st ate d i n the f o r m o f“ o pi ni o n a nd b el i efs” w as i ns uffi ci en t to sh ow a ge n u in e i s s u e fo r tr ial). T h e p lain tiffs cla im th at th e d efend an ts us ed m a t erialfrom Professor H o’s c op yr igh te d n ot eb oo k, bu t t h e y p r ov id e n o s p ec ific e viden ce l i nk i ngthe m ateri ali n pa per s publ i sh ed bythe d efend an t to that f ou nd exc lusively in P rofessor H o’s unp ubl i shed note boo k. B ec au se the pl aint i ff s f ai l t o s ho w tha t th e ex pr es si o ns ofthe M odelhave a sta tus o fse cre cy, thei r trad e s ecr ets m i sappropri ati on cl ai m cannotsur vi ve su m m ar y j ud gm ent o n the m er i ts.

B. M ot i on f orReconsider at i on W e r evi ew a dist ri ct c ourt ’ s deni alo fa m ot ion for re c on sid er at ion for a b u se of d isc re tio n . Reg e rD ev., LL C v. Nat ’ l Ci ty Bank, 592 F.3d 759 , 763 (7th C ir. 2010).32 N o. 10

- 2144

S ee s u pra note 5. 14 The pla i nti ff s s ubm i t that the di strict cour t abused i ts disc re ti on be cause i t f ai l ed to co nsi der the add itio n al evi dence they p ro vided at thi s s tag e o fthe proce edi ngs, includ ing su p p ort fortheir assertion th at th ere are m any di ffer ent ways to express t h e M odelwh etheras sente nces, parag ra phs orev en fullar ti cl es. The defendants r eply tha t th e di st r i ctcou rt pro per l y de ni ed th e pl ainti ff s’ m oti on f orr eco nsi derat i on be cause th e m oti on f ai l ed to expl ai n w hat co pyi ng o c c u rred and w hy i t was ac ti o n ab l e . Ad d i t i o n a l l y, th e d e fe n d a n t s n o t e th a tt he pla i nti ff s did not show that the addit i onalev i dence previ ousl y was unavai l abl e. Fed eral Ru le ofCivil Proc ed ure 5 9 (e ) “all ow s a cou rt 14 to a l t e r o r a men d a j ud g men t o nl y i f the pe t i t i o ne r can d em on st r a te a m an ifes t e rro r of law or p re se n t n ew ly disc ove re d evi dence. ” O br ie cht v. R a em isch , 51 7 F
. 3d 489, 494 ( 7th Ci r. 20 08)
. Th e plai nti ff s, i n thei r m oti on f or re consi derat i on, proffer ed a gr eat deal of add i ti onal evi dence. Yet, as the d ist ri ct c ourtand def endants not e, the pl ai nti ff s m ade no showing that th is evi dence w as ne w ly d iscovered or p reviously un available. Furth erm o r e, a s o urpr ev i o us di sc ussion ha s m ade c l ea r, the dist ri ct c ou rt m ade no er ro r ofl aw thatco uld have se r ve d a s a ba si s f o r g r an tingthe Rul e 59 ( e) mot i o n. I n thei r m oti on, the pla i nti ff s e xpli ci tl y no ted the i r disagr eem ent with the l ega l r eas oni ng o fthe cour t, but they pres e nt e d n o n e w a r g ume nttha two ul d e xp o s e a n e rr or i n tha t r ea so ni ng . The di st r i ctc o ur t ne verthel es s r ee x-N o. 10

- 2144 33

am ined the issu e of cop yr ig h t infring em en t and conv ersi o n b as ed o n the mot i o n, b uti t r ea ch ed th e same c o ncl usi on, a con c lusi on that we affi rm to day. A ccor dingl y, th e di st r i ctc o ur t di d no t ab us e it s di sc r et i o n in de ny i ng th e pl aint i ff s’ mot i o n f o r r ec o ns i der at i o n.
Conclusi on W e co ncl ud e that the di str i ct c ourtp roperl y g ra nted sum m ar y j u d gm en t o n al l cl ai m s in f avo r ofPro fess or T aflo ve a n d M r. C h an g a n d th at th e d ist ric t c ou rtd id no t ab us e its di sc r et i o n in de ny i ngPr o fes so r Ho an d M s. H uang’ s m oti on f orr eco nsi de ra tio n. A ccor dingl y, i t s j ud g men ti s a ffi r med

. A FFI RMED

6- 6- 11