2009 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 7-27-2009 

# C al Fi shk in v . S u squeh ann a P ar tne rs P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 08-3100

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2009 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " C al F i shkin v

. S us queh ann a P ar tne r s " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 934. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/934NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N o. 08- 3100 C A L F IS H K IN ; I G O R C H E R N O M Z A V ; FR A N C IS W IS N IE W S K I, v. S U S Q U E H A N N A P A R T N E R S , G .P .; SU SQ U EH A N N A I N TER N A TI O N A L G RO U P, LLP, D e f e n d a n ts/C o u n ter C laim a n ts v. TAB FG, LLC; NT PRO P TRAD I NG LLC; RI CH AR D PFEI L, C o u n ter D e f

e n d a n ts SU SQ U EH A N N A I N TER N A TI O N A L G RO U P, LLP, A p p e llan t.

A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . C i vi l N o. 2- 03- cv- 3766) D istric t Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le M a ryA . M c L a u g h lin

A r gued on J une 11, 2009 B efor e: M cK E E , H A R D I M A N , and V A N A N T W E R PE N , C i r cui tJ udges2 ( Fi l ed: J ul y27, 2009) M . N or m an G ol dber ger , E s q. ( A r gued) B a llard , S p a h r, A n d re w s & In g e rso ll 1735 M arketSt r eet 51s tFl oor Phi l adel phi a, PA 19103 M a tth e w A . W h ite , E s q . B a llard , S p a h r, A n d re w s & In g e rso ll 1735 M arketSt r eet 51s tFl oor Phi l adel phi a, PA 19103 C ouns el f orAppel l ant D avi d S. R us ki n, E s q. ( A r gued) H o rw o o d , M arc u s & B erk 180 N or th L aSal l e St r eet Sui t e 3700 C hi cago, I L 60601 M egan M . M athi as , E s q. H o rw o o d , M arc u s & B erk 180 N or th L aSal l e St r eet Sui t e 3700 C hi cago, I L 60601 E ri c B . M e y e r, E s q . Di l wor th Pa x s o n , LLP 1500 M arketSt r eet , Sui t e 3500E Phi l adel phi a, PA 19102- 2101 C o u n se l fo r Ap

p e llee N T

P ro p T ra d in gL L Ca n d

R ich a rdP

feil K enneth A . Sw eder , E s q. ( A r gued) S w eder & R oss 131 O l i verSt r eet B os t on, M A 02110 Paul J . G r eco, E s q. Co n r a d O’ Br i e n Ge l l ma n & Ro h n , P . C.3

1 5 1 5 M a rk e t S tre e t 16th Fl oor Phi l adel phi a, PA 19102 Couns e lf

orAppe l l e e s CalFis hk i n, I go rCher no m z av, an d TABFG , LLC

OP I NI ON V A N A N T W E R PE N , C i r cui tJ udge T hi s appea l s t ems fr om a di s put e betw een A ppel l antSusque hanna I nt ernat i onal G r oup, L L P ( “SI G ”) , a s ecur i t i es t r adi ng fi r m , and tw o of i t s form erempl oy ees , C al Fi s hki n and I gorC hernom zav, w ho l eftSI G and form ed a c om pet i ng s ecur i t i es tr adi ng j o i n tv e n tu r e , TAB FG, LLC ( “ TAB FG” ) , i n p a r t n e r s h i p wi t h NT Pr o p Tr a d i n g , LLC ( “N T Pr op”) . SI G now appea l s fr om the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s O r derof February12, 2007, deny i ng i t s m ot i on fors um m aryj udgm entr egar di ng di s gor gementof pr ofi t s , and fr om the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s O r derof J une 17, 2008, deny i ng i t s cl ai m form i s appr opr i at i on of tr a d e s e c r e t s . F o rt h e r e a s o n s t h a tf o l l o w, we wi l l a f

f i r m. I. B ec au se w e w ri te so lel yfo r th e p arti es, w e w il l add ress o n lytho se f ac ts ne ce ssary to o u r o p in io n . I n the s pr i ng of 1999, C al Fi s hki n and I gorC hernom zav be gan w or ki ng forSI G as s ecur i t i es t r ader s , and ea ch exe cut ed an e m pl oym entcontr actcont ai ni ng r es t r i ct i ve c o v e n a n ts . O n e s u c h c o v e n a n t, th e “ N o n -C o m p e titio n ” c la u s e , p ro v id e d in p a rt th a t,A “futur e” i s a der i vat i ve, w hi ch i s a s ecur i t ythatder i ves i t s val ue fr om an 1 under l y i ng s ecur i t yoras s et . Speci fi cal l y , a futur e i s a contr actt o buyors el l a part i cul ar c o m m o d itya t a s p e c if

ic p ric e a t a s e t ti m e in th e f u tu re . T h e f

u tu re s a t issu e in th is l i t i gat i on w er e contr act s t o buyors el l s t ocks i n t he D J I A orSt andar d & Poor ’ s ( “S& P”) 500 I ndex— D ow Futur es and S& P Fut ur es , r es pect i vel y— ata s etpr i ce on a s etdat e. 4 [f] ora per i od of ni ne ( 9) m ont hs fol l ow i ng the l at erof the t erm i nat i on of [E m p loy ee ’s] em p loym en t or th e third a n n iversa ryfo ll o w ing E m p loy ee ’s e n tryin to th e tra in in g c o u rse , E m p lo y e e sh a ll n o t trad e in a n yp ro d u c ts in w hi ch he ors he w as t r adi ng for[SI G ] atanyt i m e dur i ng the thr ee ( 3) m o n th p e rio d p rio r to th e ter m in a tio n o f E m p lo y e e ’s e m p lo ym e n t. T he noncompet i t i on cl aus e al s o barr ed Fi s hki n and C hernom zav f r om di s cl os i ng c o n f id e n tial in f

o rm a tio n a b o u t S IG ’s b u sin e ss a n d re stric ted th e m f ro m a ss o c iatin g w ith any one empl oy ed atSI G dur i ng t he ni ne mont hs pr i ort o t hei rt erm i nat i on fora per i od of fi ve y ear s . T he empl oym entagr eementpr ovi ded SI G w i t h al t ernat i ve r emedi es i n t he eventof a br eac h: ( a) l i qui dat ed damages of $700, 000 or$800, 000, dependi ng on t he w hen the br eac h occurr ed; or( b) i nj unct i ve r el i ef a nd ot herr emedi es t o w hi ch i tw as e n title d a t la w . In A u g u st 19 9 9 , S IG assig n ed F ran cis W isniew sk i t o tr ad e D o w F u tures, w h ich a re futur es contr act s i n t he D ow J ones I ndus t r i al A ver age ( “D J I A ”) , i n t he tr adi ng pi tatt he 1 C hi cago Boar d of Tra de. Fol l ow i ng abouta mont h of uns ucce s s ful tr adi ng, W i s ni ew s ki d e v e lo p e d a f

o rm u la f o r c a lcu latin g th e e x p e c ted v a lu e s o f D o w F u tu re s b a se d o n h is o b s e r v a t i o n t h a ts u c c e s s f u l tr a d e r s o f

Do w F u tu r e s m o n i t o r e d tr a d i n g d a t a f o rth e S &P 5 0 0 I n d e x . B e c a u s e a l l o f t h e i n d i v i d u a l s t o c k s i n th e DJ I A a r e a l s o i n c l u d e d i n th e S &P 5 0 0 I n d e x , Do w F u tu r e s a n d S &P F u tu r e s t e n d t o m o v e i n th e s a m e d i r e c t i o n , wi t h S &P F u tures typ icall yad

justi n g to m ark et m o v em en ts sl igh tl yb ef o re su ch ad

justm en ts are5

re f lec ted in th e p ric e o f

D o w F u tu re s. A c c o rd in g ly , S IG ’s D o w F a ir V a lu e f o rm u la re f lec ted th e re latio n sh ip b e tw e e n S & P F u tu re s a n d D o w F u tu re s. A f ter d e v e lo p in g th is fo rm u la, W isniew sk i created a sp rea d sh ee t t o m ak e the fo rm u la’s calcu lat ion s m o re qui ckl y . A ft ert w o m ont hs of tr adi ng D ow Futur es , SI G r eas s i gned W i s ni ew s ki . H e s aved the s pr eads heetcont ai ni ng t he D ow Fai rV al ue form ul a. In A u g u st 2 0 0 1 , S IG re a ss ig n e d W isn iew sk i to th e D o w F u tu re s p it an d , sh o rtly ther eaf t er , as s i gned Fi s hki n t o t r ade D ow Futur es ( and enga ge i n r el at ed hedgi ng tr ans act i ons ) w i t h W i s ni ew s ki . T heyus ed the D ow Fai rV al ue form ul a thatW i s ni ew s ki pr evi ous l ydevel oped and tr aded the pr oductunt i l M ar ch 2003; forthe y ear2002, W i s ni ew s ki and Fi s hki n earned SI G nettr adi ng pr ofi t s of appr oxi m at el y$30 m i l l i on. F ish k in g re w d iss a tisf

ied w ith h is c o m p e n sa tio n a n d , in J u n e 2 0 0 2 , so u g h t to n e g o tiate a n e w e m p lo ym e n t co n tra c t w ith S IG . S IG d id n o t im m e d iate lyre sp o n d to h is r eques t . L at ert haty ear , Fi s hki n w as appr oache d bya non- SI G tr aderr epr es ent i ng a gr oup thatl at erbeca m e N T Pr op aboutw hetherhe w oul d be i nt er es t ed i n form i ng a new c o m p a n yto tra d e D o w F u tu re s. F ish k in in d ica ted th a t h e w o u ld b e in ter e ste d in p arti cipa ti n g in the n ew tr ad ing g rou p as o f M arc h 2 0 0 3 , w h en h is co n tr ac t w ith S IG expi r ed. B etw een D ece m ber2002 and A pr i l 2003, Fi s hki n m etw i t h N T Pr op r epr es ent at i ves s ever al t i m es t o di s cus s a tr adi ng ventur e; atone s uch meet i ng, N T Pr op re p re se n tativ e s a sk e d F ish k in a b o u t S IG ’s p ro f itab ili tyin tra d in g D o w F u tu re s. F ish k in t ol d them t hatconfi dent i al i t ypr ovi s i ons pr ecl uded hi m fr om r evea l i ng s uch i nform at i on, but , w hen as ked i f he made m or e than $5 mi l l i on atSI G , Fi s hki n r epl i ed bys ay i ngI gorC hernom zav w or ked forSI G as an opt i ons tr ader . H e di d nottr ade D ow 2 F u tu r e s wi t h F i s h k i n a tS I G. T he compl ai ntnamed Susqueha nna I nt ernat i onal G r oup, L L P, and Sus quehanna 3 Par tner s , G . P. T hes e ent i t i es ar e one a nd the s ame. 6 “y ou’ l l be pl eas ed. ” I n February2003, Fi s hki n s t opped tr adi ng forSI G and off i ci al l yl eft the co m pan yi n M arch 20 03 (al on g w i t h C hernom zav) t o st arta com peti ng bu si ness, 2 T A B F G , L L C . O n M arc h 3 1 , 2 0 0 3 , arti cles o f in co rpo rati o n w ere fil ed fo r T A B F G . In l at e A pr i l 2003, T A B FG and N T Pr op ent er ed i nt o a j oi ntventur e t o t r ade s ecur i t i es and fi na nc i a l pr od uc t s on t he Chi c a go Boar d o f Tr a de ( a s w e l l a s othe re xc ha ng e s ) . TA BFG began tr adi ng on A pr i l 25, 2003; i ttr aded f orfourand one- hal f m onths unt i l Sept ember 1 6 , 2 0 0 3 , w h e n it w a s e n jo in e d f ro m d o in g s o b yth e D is tr ic t C o u rt . O n M a rc h 3 0 , 2 0 0 3 , F ish k in a n d C h e rn o m z a v , alo n g w ith F ra n c is W isn iew sk i, fi l ed s ui ti n t he C our tof C om m on Pl eas of M ont gom eryC ount y , Penns y l vani a, s eeki ng d e c lar a to rya n d in

ju n c tiv e re lief

to th e e f f e c t th a t th e n o n c o m p e tit io n a g re e m e n ts in th e ir empl oym entcontr act s w i t h SI G w er e unenf or cea bl e. SI G fi l ed a c ount er cl ai m s eeki ng an 3 i nj unct i on pr event i ng Fi s hki n and C hernom zav f r om tr adi ng as w el l as damages for br eac h of contr act , m i s appr opr i at i on of tr ade s ecr et s , conver s i on, t or t i ous i nt er fer ence w ith co n tr ac t, an d civil con sp ir ac y . S IG also im p lead ed T A B F G ; N T P rop ; and R icha rd Pfei l , a pr i nci pal of N T Pr op, as t hi r d- par t ydefe ndant s . N T Pr op and Pfei l r emoved t he cas e t o the U . S. D i s t r i ctC our tfort he East ern D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a pur s uantt o 28O n J ul y7, 2003, N T Pr op and Pfei l fi l ed a mot i on t o di s m i s s , w hi ch w as 4 u ltim a te ly g ra n te d a s to P f e il a n d d e n ie d a s to N T P ro p . F ishki n v. Su squeh an na P artners , G . P . , N o . C iv. A . 0 3 -37 6 6 , 2 0 0 5 W L 1 0 3 0 1 9 9 (E . D . P a. M ay2 , 2 0 0 5 ). O n M ar ch 16, 2005, fol l ow i ng the dea t h of J udge K el l y , the ca s e w as tr ans ferr ed 5 t o J udge M cLaughl i n. F isk in , C h e rn o m z a v , an d W isn iew sk i in iti a llya p p e a led th is d e c isio n , b u t, 6 pur s uantt o a mot i on byal l par t i es , thi s C our tdi s m i s s ed the appe al on J ul y8, 2004 p u rsua n t t o F ed era l R u le of A p p ell ate P roc ed u re 4 2 (b).

7 U . S. C . § 1332. 4 S IG m o v ed fo r a p reli m inaryinjun cti o n to en fo rce F ishk in’s an d C h ern o m za v ’s noncompet i t i on agr eement s , and J udge J ames M cG i r rK el l y gr ant ed thatm ot i on on 5 Sept ember16, 2003. O n February3, 2006, SI G m oved fors um m aryj udgm entt o m ake 6 the i nj unct i ve r el i ef pe r m anent , and N T Pr op fi l ed a mot i on fors um m aryj udgm enton A pr i l 21, 2006. O n M ay31, 2006, t he D i s t r i ctC our tdeni ed N T Pr op’ s m ot i on for su m m aryjud g m en t and g ran ted S IG ’s m o ti o n , there b ym ak ing p erm an en t th e p reli m inary i njunct i ve rel i ef en forci ng t he em ploym ent cont ract ’s res t ri ct i ve co ven ants against Fi s hki n and C hernom zav. O n F eb rua ry1 2 , 2 0 0 7 , the D istri ct C o u rtco n side red cro ss-m o ti o n s fo r sum m ary j udgm entconce r ni ng t he pr operm eas ur e of da m ages r es ul t i ng fr om Fi s hki n’ s and C hernr om zav’ s br eac h of thei rnoncompet i t i on covena nt s . SI G s oughtt o m eas ur e the amount of damages as t he pr ofi t s earned byFi s hki n, C hernom zav, T A B FG , and N T Pr op; the D istri ct C o u rtrejected this th eo ryo f d am ag es a n d d en ied S IG ’s m o ti o n fo r sum m ary j udgm enti n i t s ent i r ety . C onver s el y , Fi s hki n, C hernom zav, and TA B FG cont ended thatI n t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s M emora ndum and O r derof February12, 2007, i tdeni ed 7 SI G ’ s m ot i on fors um m aryj udgm enti n i t s ent i r ety . I n addi t i on, the courtal s o rul ed that SI G coul d onl yr ecove rnom i nal damages fori t s br eac h of contr actcl ai m . Si m i l ar l y , on 8 SI G coul d notpr ove the appr opr i at e meas ur e of da m ages — i t s ow n l os tpr ofi t s — and s oughtthe di s m i s s al of SI G ’ s cl ai m s of br eac h of contr act , t or t i ous i nt er fer ence , and cons pi r acy . T he D i s t r i ctC our tgr ant ed thei rm ot i on i n par t , fi ndi ng thatthe pr oper m easure of da m ages fo r SIG ’s cl ai m s w as i t s l ostprofi t s and thatS IG cou l d n ot es t abli sh thatm eas ur e. N evert hel es s , t he D i s t r i ctC our tfound that , beca us e “ther e r emai n di s put ed issue s o f f

ac t as t o w h ethe r S IG w as h arm ed b yM r. F ishk in an d M r. C h ern o m za v ’s tr adi ng i n br eac h of thei rnon- compet i t i on agr eement s , ” SI G w as ent i t l ed t o s eek a n aw ar d of nom i nal damages . A ccor di ngl y , i tdeni ed the mot i on of Fi s hki n, C hernom zav, and TA B FG “t o t he ext enti ts eeks t o di s m i s s the cl ai m s ati s s ue i n t hes e mot i ons . ” T he D i s t r i ctC our tconduct ed a be nch tr i al on t he r emai ni ng cl ai m s fr om A pr i l 23, 2 0 0 7 , thr o u g h A p ril 2 6 , 2 0 0 7 . O n Ju n e 1 7 , 2 0 0 8 , the D istric t C o u rt d e n ied S IG ’s c laim form i s appr opr i at i on of tr ade s ecr et s as w el l as r el at ed cl ai m s thatar e notati s s ue i n the in s ta n t a p p e a l. Fis h k i n v . S u s q u e h a n n a Pa r tn e rs , G. P. , 563 F. Supp. 2d 547 ( E . D . Pa. 2008) . SI G now appea l s t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s February12, 2007, deni al of i t s m ot i on for s um m aryj udgm entand the J une 17, 2008, deni al of i t s cl ai m fortr ade s ecr et m i s appr opr i at i on. II . T he D i s t r i ctC our tpr oper l yexer ci s ed j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1332. T hi s C our thas j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1291. “[O ] urr evi ew of a gr antof 7J une 17, 2008, t he D i s t r i ctC our ti s s ued an or derdeny i ng SI G ’ s count er cl ai m s for

m i s appr opr i at i on of tr ade s ecr et s , conver s i on, and cons pi r acy . A tar gum ent , the part i es a g re e d th a t th e D istric t C o u rt h a s f u llya n d f

in a llyd isp o se d o f

th e o u tsta n d in g iss u e s in this case . W e a g ree , an d ac co rdin g lyw e c an ex erc ise j u ri sd ict ion o v er the se m att ers pur s uantt o § 1291. T he part i es agr ee thatt he s ubs t ant i ve contr actl aw of Penns y l vani a governs the 8 i s s ues r ai s ed i n t hi s di s put e. 9 sum m aryj ud gm ent i s pl enary , and i n m aking t hat r eview w e use t he sam e st and ard as a di s tr i ctcourt : w hethert her e ar e genui ne i s s ues of m at er i al fac tpr ecl udi ng entr yof s um m aryj udgm ent . ” A cum ed LLCv. A dvance d Sur gi cal Ser vs . , I nc. , 561 F. 3d 199, 211 ( 3d C i r . 2009) . A s t o SI G ’ s appea l of the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s deni al of i t s m i s appr opr i at i on of tr ade s ecr et s cl ai m fol l ow i ng a benc h t r i al , thi s C our tr evi ew s the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s fac tual f in d in g s f o r c lea r e rro r a n d e x e rc ise s p len a ryre v iew o v e r its c o n c lu sio n s o f law a n d its in te rp re ta tio n o f

le g a l p re c e p ts . A m . So c’y f or T est i ng& M

ater i als v. C orrpro C os. , 478 F . 3 d 5 5 7 , 5 6 6 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 7 ). III . A . D amages forC ont r actual B r eac h 8 S IG a p p e a ls th e D istric t C o u rt’s r u lin g th a t, be c a u se S IG c o u ld n o t es tab lish its l os tpr ofi t s r es ul t i ng fr om Fi s hki n’ s and C hernom zav’ s br eac h of thei rempl oym ent co n tr ac ts, itw as e n ti tl ed o n lyto n o m inal d am ag es o n it s b rea ch o f c o n tr ac t cl aim . S IG a rg u e s th a t th e D istric t C o u rt e rre d in d e n y in g its m o tio n f o r su m m a ryju d g m e n t an d in barr i ng i tfr om r ecove r i ng r es t i tut i on damages m eas ur ed bythe nettr adi ng pr ofi t s m ade byT A B FG dur i ng t he fourand one ha l f m onths of 2003 dur i ng w hi ch i tact i vel ytr aded a t10

the C hi cago Boar d of Tra de. P e n n sy lv a n ia la w re c o g n ize s th re e p o ss ib le r e m e d ies f o r a b re a c h o f

c o n tra c t: e x p e c ta tio n d a m a g e s , re lia n c e d a m a g e s , a n d re s titu tio n d a m a g e s . Fer r erv. Trus t ees of U ni v. of P a. , 8 2 5 A .2 d 5 9 1 , 6 0 9 (P a . 2 0 0 2 ); see al so A T A CS C o rp . v. T

ra n s W o rld C om m c’ ns , I

nc. , 1 5 5 F .3 d 6 5 9 , 6 6 9 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 8 ); T ro sky v. C ivi l Ser v. C o m m c’n , 652 A . 2d 813, 817 ( Pa. 1995) ; R es t at ement( Second) of C ont r act s § 344 ( 1981) . A l t hough t he preferr ed rem edyfor a con t ractual br each is the aw ard of ex pectat i on dam ages, “meas ur ed by‘ t he l os s es caus ed and ga i ns pr event ed bydefe ndant ’ s br eac h, ’ ” AT ACS C or p. , 155 F. 3d at669 ( quot i ng A m . A i rF i l t erC o. v. McN i chol , 527 F. 2d 1297, 1299 ( 3d C i r. 19 75 )) , a partym ayal so sue fo r r el i ance o r r est i tuti on dam ages i n li m i t ed inst ances.

“ T h is is e sp e c iallyso w h e re a n in ju re d p a rtyis e n tit led to re c o v e r f o r b re a c h o f

c o n tra c t, butr ecove r ybas ed on tr adi t i onal not i ons of expe ct at i on damages i s cl ouded bec aus e of the unce r t ai nt yi n m eas ur i ng t he l os s i n val ue t o t he aggr i eved c ontr act i ng par t y . ” I d. B e f o re th e D istric t C o u rt, S IG c o n c e d e d th a t itc o u ld n o t ca lcu late its lo st p ro f its r es ul t i ng fr om t he br eac h, t her ebyr ender i ng i nappr opr i at e the pr efe r r ed r emedyof exp ect at i on dam ages. N evertheles s, S IG argued that i tw as ent i t l ed to r est i tuti on dam ages, w h ich re q u ire a b re a c h in g p a rtyto “ d isg o rg e th e b e n e f it h e h a s re c e iv e d b yre tu rn in g it t o the partythatconfe r r ed i t . ” Tros ky , 652 A . 2d at817 ( quot i ng R es t at ement( Second) of C ontr act s § 344) . I n part i cul ar , SI G as s ert s thati tconfe r r ed bene fi t s on Fi s hki n and C hernom zav, i n t he form of tr ai ni ng and oppor tuni t i es t o l earn t he mar ketand deve l op g o o d w ill w ith o th e r tra d e rs, a n d th a t th e p ro p e r m e a su re o f re stitu tio n f

o r th o se b e n e f

itsB efor e the D i s t r i ctC our t , SI G r ai s ed an a l t ernat i ve theoryof r es t i tut i on damages 9 i n w hi ch i tas s ert ed that , i f the D i s t r i ctC our tr ej ect ed i t s cl ai m fordi s gor gementof pr ofi t s , i ts houl d be perm i t t ed t o r ecove rthe cos tof i t s tr ai ni ng pr ogr am. T he D i s t r i ct C our tdeni ed SI G ’ s r eques t , hol di ng that“[e ] ven thi s m or e l i m i t ed r es t i tut i on damage theoryi s i nappr opr i at e underPenns y l vani a l aw . ” Fis h k i n v . S u s q u e h a n n a Pa r tn e rs , G. P. , N o . 0 3 -3 7 6 6 , 2 0 0 7 W L 5 6 0 7 0 3 , at * 6 (E .D . P a . F e b . 1 2 , 2 0 0 7 ). S IG d o e s n o t ap p e a l th is d e te rm in a tio n . 11 w ou l d requir e t he b reachi ng part i es t o “d i sgorge” thei r nettradi ng profi t s. 9 T he D i s t r i ctC our tconcl uded thatthi s C our t ’ s deci s i on i n A m er i can Ai rF i l t er , 527 F . 2 d at 12 9 9 -13 0 1 , b arred S IG ’s claim fo r disg o rge m en t of T A B F G an d N T P rop ’s p ro f its. In th a t ca se , A m e ric a n A ir F ilt e r su e d its f o rm e r e m p lo y e e , M c N ich o l, an d h is new empl oy erforbr eac h of a nonc om pet i t i on agr eement , s eeki ng i nj unct i ve and m o n e ta ry re lie f. Id . at1298- 1300. T he di s t r i ctcour tdeni ed i nj unct i ve r el i ef a nd ent er ed j udgm enton a j ur yver di cti n favorof the def endant s . O n appea l , A m er i can A i rFi l t er s oughtt o es t abl i s h damages vi a ( 1) an ac count i ng of pr ofi t s m ade byM cN i chol ’ s new e mp l o y e r , ( 2 ) M c Ni c h o l ’ s c o mm i s s i o n s e a r n e d wi t h h i s n e w e mp l o y e r , a n d ( 3 ) i t s o wn d e c r e a s e i n p r o f

i ti n t h e t e r r i t o r y s e r v e d b y th e f o r m e re m p l o ye e a f

t e ri tl e f tth e c o m p a n y. T hi s C our tr ej ect ed A m er i can A i rFi l t er ’ s at t empt t o m eas ur e i t s damages bythe pr ofi t s of the b rea ch ing p arty ’s ne w em p loy er, ob serv ing that “[ t] h e b asic f ail ing o f th e p lai n ti ff ’s theo ryis th at th e d ef

en d an t’ s p rof

it s are n o t nec essa ri lyeq u ivalen t t o the p lai n ti ff ’s lo ss e s. . . . T o c o m p e l d e f e n d a n t to d isg o rg e th e se p ro f its c o u ld g iv e p lain tiff

a w in d f a ll and pena l i ze the def

endant , nei t herof w hi ch s erves the purpos e of c ont r actdamages . ” I d. at1300 & n. 8 ( “[A ] defe ndant ’ s pr ofi t s ar e notthe meas ur e of a contr actpl ai nt i ff’ s l os s es

. . . . ” ); see al

so U. S. N

aval I ns t . v. C har t erC om m c’ ns , I nc. , 936 F. 2d 692, 696- 97 ( 2dS IG a ls o re lie s o n a C o lo ra d o d e c is io n , E ar thI nf o, I nc. v. H ydr os pher e Resour ce 10 C ons ul tant

s , I nc. , 900 P. 2d 113 ( C ol o. 1995) . B eca us e E a rth In fo di d noti nvol ve the appl i cat i on of Penns y l vani a l aw , w e foc us ouranal y s i s on t he i m pl i cat i ons of AT ACS . 12 C i r . 1991) ( “W hi l e on occ as i on t he def endant ’ s pr ofi t s ar e us ed as the meas ur e of damages , t hi s gener al l yoccur s w hen thos e pr ofi t s t end t o defi ne the pl ai nt i ff’ s l os s , foran aw ard o f th e d ef

en d an t’ s p rof

it s w h ere theyg rea tl yex ce ed the p lai n ti ff ’s l o ss an d there has been no t or t i ous conducton t he partof the def endantw oul d t end t o be puni t i ve, and p u n it ive a w ard s are n o t part of the law o f c o n tr ac t dam ag es.” (cit ati o n s o m itted)). SI G ci t es t hi s C our t ’ s deci s i on i n AT ACS in su p p o rt o f

its a rg u m e n t th a t th e p ro f its o f th e b rea ch ing p artyca n serv e a s the resti tuti o n interest fo r a b rea ch o f c o n tr ac t. In 10 AT ACS , t hi s C our tcons i der ed the di s t r i ctcour t ’ s aw ar d of nom i nal damages ar i s i ng fr om a pr i m arycontr act or ’ s br eac h of a t eami ng agr eementw i t h a s ubcontr act orw her e the s u b c o n tr a c to r’ s lo s t p ro f its c o u ld n o t b e c a lc u la te d w ith re a s o n a b le c e rt a in ty. AT ACS , 155 F. 3d at668. I n expl or i ng t he appl i cabi l i t yof r es t i tut i on damages , thi s C our tobs erved that re stitu tio n d a m a g e s a re “ ro o ted in c o m m o n n o tio n s o f e q u ity ” a n d th a t th e yw o u ld

“ re q u ire th e p a rtyin b re a c h to d isg o rg e th e b e n e f it rec e iv e d b yre tu rn in g it t o th e p a rty w ho confe r r ed i t . ” I

d. at669. T he AT

ACS C our tvaca t ed the di s t r i ctcour t ’ s aw ar d of nom i nal damages and r emanded foran evi dent i aryhear i ng t o det erm i ne “‘ t he fa i rval ue o f [ th e su b c o n tra c to r’s ] c o n trib u tio n to [ th e p rim e c o n tra c to r’s ] a g re e m e n t’ in o rd e r to pr ot ectt he s ubcontr act or ’ s r es t i tut i on i nt er es t . ” I d. at671 ( al t ernat i on i n or i gi nal ; quot i ng r efe r ence om i t t ed) . D es pi t e SI G ’ s r el i ance on AT ACS i n s uppor tof i t s ar gum entthatt he br eac hi ng par t y ’ s pr ofi t s can s erve as r es t i tut i on damages , the AT ACS C our tdi d not13

cons i dera r eques tfordi s gor gementof the br eac hi ng par t y ’ s pr ofi t s . T he AT ACS s ubcontr act ordi d nots eek the pr i m arycontr act or ’ s pr ofi t s on t he contr act ; aft er uns ucce s s ful l ypur s ui ng expec t at i on damages , i ts oughtr es t i tut i on of the val ue of the s e rv ic e s it r e n d e re d . I

d. a t 6 6 4 -6 5 , 6 6 8 . T hus , t he AT

ACS C our t ’ s r ecogni t i on of the pos s i bl e r emedyof r es t i tut i on d am ag es a s m ea su red b y“‘the fa irv alue o f [ the s u b co n tr ac tor’s co n tr ibu ti o n ]’” co rresp o n d s to R estatem en t ( S ec o n d ) of C o n tr ac ts § 3 4 4 ’s ch ara cterizati o n o f a p arty ’s r es t i tut i onaryi nt er es tas t he “i nt er es ti n havi ng r es t or ed . . . anybenef i tthat[i t ] has confe rr ed on the otherpart y . ” See Tr os ky , 652 A . 2d at817 ( di s cus s i ng § 344) . A l t hough S IG a ss e rts th a t th e b e n e f its it co n f

e rre d o n F ish k in a n d C h e rn o m z a v “ re a so n a b ly equat e[] t o t he $3. 5 m i l l i on i n pr ofi ttheygener at ed forthemsel ves and thei rcoventur er s , ” i thas fai l ed t o demonstr at e thatthe val ue of the bene fi ti tconfe r r ed i n t he form of tr ai ni ng and oppor tuni t i es corr es ponds t o t he br eac hi ng par t i es ’ nettr adi ng pr ofi t s . A s t he D i s t r i ctC our tnot ed, “the ‘ bas i c fa i l i ng’ of SI G ’ s theoryi s thatthe count er cl ai m defe ndant ’ s pr ofi t s ar e notnece s s ar i l yequi val entt o SI G ’ s l os s es , w hether thos e l os s es ar e vi ew ed as SI G ’ s l os tpr ofi t s orSI G ’ s r es t i tut i on i nt er es ti n t he bene fi tof its tra in in g .” B e c a u se S IG d id n o t p ro v e th a t th e v a lu e o f th e b e n e f

it co n f e rre d e q u a ted to n et trad ing p rof

it s ea rne d b ythe b rea ch ing p arti es, th e D istri ct C o u rt ’s rejecti o n o f S IG ’s claim fo r resti tuti o n d am ag es w as p rop er. W e ac know l edge that , i n t he s ecur i t i es tr adi ng i ndus t r y , harm occa s i oned bythe breach o f a no nco m peti t i on cov enan tcan b e un i qu el ydiffi cultt o calcul at e. N evertheles s,14

se c u rities tra d in g f

irm s a re n o t w ith o u t a m e a n s to p ro tec t th e m se lv e s a g a in st th is d if f icu lty ; th e yc a n in c lu d e liq u id a ted d a m a g e s c lau se s in th e ir e m p lo ym e n t ag re e m e n ts th a t p ro v id e f

o r t h e d is g o rg e m e n t o f

p ro f its b yth e b re a c h in g p a rt y . See, e. g. , O m i cr on Sys . , I nc. v. W ei ner , 860 A . 2d 554, 564- 65 ( Pa. Super . C t . 2004) ( enfor ci ng l i qui dat ed d a m a g e s p ro v isio n p ro v id in g th a t, i n th e e v e n t o f a n yb re a c h o f

a re stric tiv e c o v e n a n t, “the C om panys hal l be ent i t l ed t o obt ai n . . . pr el i m i naryand perm anenti nj unct i ve r el i ef a s w e ll as d a m a g e s a n d a n e q u itab le a c c o u n tin g o f a ll ea rn in g s, p ro f

its a n d o th e r b e n e f

its a risin g f ro m su c h v io latio n ” ); W or ldw i de Audi t i ng Ser vs . , I nc. v. R i cht er , 587 A . 2d 772, 777- 78 ( Pa. Super . C t . 1991) ( hol di ng t hata l i qui dat ed damages pr ovi s i on thatpr ovi ded fordi s gor gementof pr ofi tat t r i but abl e t o br eac hi ng par t y ’ s vi ol at i on of contr actual covena ntw as enfor cea bl e) . T he part i es ’ contr actdi d i ncl ude a l i qui dat ed damages pr ovi s i on— dr aft ed bySI G

— t hatdi d notpr ovi de fordi s gor gement . I ns t ead, the pr ovi s i on gave SI G the choi ce t o ( a) acc eptl i qui dat ed damages of $700, 000 or$800, 000, or( b) p u rs u e a n in

ju n c tio n a n d o th e r a v a ila b le , le g a l r e m e d ie s . S IG c h o s e th e la tte r. A ccor di ngl y , w e w i l l aff i r m the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s deni al of SI G ’ s cl ai m for res t i tuti on dam ages. B . T r ade Sec r etM i s appr opr i at i on SI G al s o appea l s t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s M emora ndum and O r derdat ed J une 17, 2008, deny i ng t r ade s ecr etpr ot ect i on forthe know l edge thatSI G ’ s D ow Futur es tr adi ngT he D i s t r i ctC our tal s o concl uded thatSI G ’ s D ow Fai rV al ue conc ept , form ul a, 11 and s pr eads heetdi d notw arr antt r ade s ecr etpr ot ect i on beca us e, al t hough SI G t ook s t eps t o keep i t s m ethod s ecr etand the met hod w as val uabl e forSI G , the D ow Fai rV al ue tr adi ng appr oach w as know n and us ed byot hertr ader s , SI G di d noti nves ta tr emendous am o u n t of

ti m e o r m o n eyto d ev elop the m etho d , an d o ther trad ers c o u ld d u p li ca te S IG ’s a p p ro a c h f

a ir ly ea s ily. F ish k in , 5 6 3 F . S u p p . 2 d a t 5 8 3 -8 4 ; s ee al s o D oebl ers ’P a. H ybr i ds , I nc. v. D oebl er , 442 F. 3d 812, 829 ( 3d C i r . 2006) ( s et t i ng for t h s i x- fac t ort es tfor w hethera tr ade s ecr etexi s t s ) . O n appea l , SI G abandons i t s cl ai m thatthe tr adi ng s t r at egy i t s el f m er i t ed tr ade s ecr etpr ot ect i on. T he part i es agr ee thatPenns y l vani a l aw governs SI G ’ s tr ade s ecr et 12 m isa p p ro p ria tio n c laim . A lth o u g h P e n n sy lv a n ia a d o p ted th e U n if o rm T ra d e S e c re ts A c t, 12 Pa. C ons . St at . A nn. § 5301 et s eq. , ef f e c tiv e A p ril 1 9 , 2 0 0 4 , the A c t d o e s n o t ap p lyto m is a p p ro p ri a tio n o c c u rr in g b e f o re its e f f e c tiv e d a te . I

d. § 5 30 1 h i st . & st at . no t e. B ecause the conduc tati s s ue occ ur r ed bef or e A pr i l 19, 2004, the U ni form T r ade Sec r et s A ctdoes n o t a p p ly; in s te a d , P e n n s y lv a n ia ’s c o m m o n la w g o v e rn in g tr a d e s e c re ts a p p lie s . D oebl er , 442 F. 3d at829 n. 20. 15 m ethodol ogyw as pr ofi t abl e. I n par t i cul ar , SI G as s ert s that , dur i ng Fi s hki n’ s di s cus s i ons 11 w i th N T Pr op r epr es ent at i ves betw een D ece m ber2002 and A pr i l 2003, Fi s hki n w as as ked aboutthe pr ofi t abi l i t yof SI G ’ s D ow Futur es tr adi ng. A l t hough Fi s hki n t ol d N T Pr op t hat confi dent i al i t ypr ovi s i ons pr ecl uded hi m fr om r evea l i ng pr ofi t abi l i t yi nform at i on, w hen as ked w hetherhe made m or e than $5 mi l l i on tr adi ng forSI G , Fi s hki n r es ponded by s ay i ng “[y ] ou’ l l be pl eas ed. ” SI G cont ends thatFi s hki n’ s di s cl os ur e cont ai ned an i m pl i ed as s er t i on thati t s D ow Futur es t r adi ng m ethod w as pr ofi t abl e t o s om e degr ee gr eat ert han $ 5 m il li o n an d that the d iscl o su re o f th e e x tent o f S IG ’s pro fit ab il itym o ti v ated N T P rop ’s re p re se n tativ e s to f

o rm a jo in t v e n tu re w ith T A B F G to tra d e D o w F u tu re s w ith F ish k in and C hernom zav. T o p re v a il o n a c laim f

o r tra d e se c re t p ro tec tio n in P e n n sy lv a n ia, th e p a rty 12 s eeki ng pr ot ect i on m us tdemonstr at e:T h is w as th e d ef init ion o f a tr ad e se cre t use d b ef o re the p assa g e o f th e U n ifo rm 13 T ra d e S e c re ts A c t. A s d e ta ile d in n o te 1 2 , supra , the re lev a n t law f o r th e p u rp o se s o f

th is li ti g ati o n is th e law o f trad e se cre ts i n P en n sy lvan ia be fo re the ad o p ti o n o f th e U n ifo rm T ra d e S e c re ts A c t. 16 (1 ) th a t th e in f

o rm a tio n c o n stitu tes a tra d e se c re t; (2 ) th a t itw a s o f v a lu e to the empl oy erand i m por t anti n t he conduc tof hi s bus i nes s ; ( 3) thatby r eas on of di s coveryorow ner s hi p t he empl oy erhad the r i ghtt o t he us e and enj oym entof the s ecr et ; and ( 4) thatthe s ecr etw as comm uni cat ed t o t he defe ndantw hi l e empl oy ed i n a pos i t i on of trus tand conf i dence unders uch c irc u m sta n c e s a s to m a k e it i n e q u itab le a n d u n ju st f o r h im to d isc lo se it t o o thers, or to m ak e u se o f ith im self, t o the p rejud ice o f h is em p loy er. D oebl ers ’P a. H

ybr i ds , I nc. v. D oebl er , 442 F. 3d 812, 829 ( 3d C i r . 2006) ( quot i ng SI H andl i ng Sys . , I

nc. v. Heis l ey , 7 5 3 F .2 d 1 2 4 4 , 1 2 5 5 (3 d C ir . 1 9 8 5 )) . A s t he D i s t r i ctC our tnot ed, “[t ] he thr es hol d i nqui r yi n a tr ade s ecr et m i s appr opr i at i on cl ai m underPenns y l vani a l aw i s w hetherthe i nform at i on i s a tr ade s ecr et . ” F ish k in , 563 F. Supp. 2d at581 ( quot i ng V an P r oduct

s C o. v. G en. W

eldi ng & Fabr i cat i ng C o. , 2 1 3 A .2 d 7 6 9 , 7 8 0 (P a . 1 9 6 5 )); s ee al s o Tys on MetalP r ods . , I nc. v. McC ann , 546 A . 2d 119, 121 ( Pa. Super . C t . 1988) . Penns y l vani a court s have a dopt ed the defi ni t i on of a tr ade s ecr etas s etfor t h i n R es t at ementof Tort s § 757 cmt . b. See 13 D oebl er , 442 F. 3d at829. T hi s pr ovi s i on s t at es that“[a ] tr ade s ecr etm aycons i s tof any form ula, patt ern, dev i ce or com pil at i on of inform at i on w hich i s used i n o ne’s busi ness, and w hi ch gi ves hi m an oppor tuni t yt o obt ai n an adva nt age ove rcompet i t or s w ho do not know orus e i t . ” R es t at ementof Tort s § 757 cmt . b. I nform at i on i s notent i t l ed t o t r ade se c re t p ro tec tio n if

it i s g e n e ra llyk n o w n , o r e a silyd e riv e d f ro m a v a ilab le in f

o rm a tio n , in th e re le v a n t b u s in e s s c o m m u n ity. I d.17

T hi s C our thas enumer at ed s ever al fac t or s t o cons i derw hen det erm i ni ng w hether in f o rm a tio n c o n stitu tes a tra d e se c re t d e se rv in g o f p ro tec tio n : (1) the ex tent to w h ich th e inf o rm ati o n is kn o w n o u tsi d e o f th e o w n er’s b u sine ss; ( 2 ) th e e x tent to w h ich it i s k n o w n b yem p loy ee s an d o thers i nvol ved i n t he ow ner ’ s bus i nes s ; ( 3) the ext entof m eas ur es t aken bythe ow nert o guar d t he s ecr ecyof the i nform at i on; ( 4) the val ue of the i nform at i on t o t he ow nerand t o hi s compet i t or s ; ( 5) the amountof ef for tor m oneyexpende d byt he ow neri n devel opi ng the i nform at i on; and ( 6) the eas e ordi ffi cul t yw i t h w hi ch the i nform at i on coul d be pr oper l yacqui r ed or du pli cat ed b yother s. D oebl er , 442 F. 3d at829 ( ci t i ng SI H andl i ng Sys . , I

nc. , 7 5 3 F .2 d a t 1 2 5 6 ); acco rd R e s ta te m e n t o f

T o rt s § 7 5 7 c m t. b . I n s om e ci r cumst ance s , court s have a ppl i ed Penns y l vani a l aw t o perm i ttr ade s ecr etpr ot ect i on of i nform at i on conce r ni ng a company ’ s pr ofi t abi l i t y , s uch as that c o m p a n y ’s s p e c if

ic p ro f it m a rg in s . SI H

an dli ngSys. , 753 F. 2d at1260 ( concl udi ng that “r ange of

dat a r el at i ng t o m at er i al s , l abor , overhead, and pr ofi tm ar gi n, among ot her thi ngs ” qual i fi ed fort r ade s ecr etpr ot ect i on t o ext enti tw as not“r eadi l yobt ai nabl e by a n y o n e in th e in d u stry ” ); see al so D en- Tal
- Ez, I

nc. v. Si em ens C api talC or p. , 566 A . 2d 12 14 , 12 30 (Pa. S up er. C t . 19 89 ) ( “[I] nfo rm at i on l i ke . . . i nv entorydata and p roj ect i on s, det ai l s uni tcos t s and pr oduct - by - pr oductpr ofi tm ar gi n dat a i s pr ot ect i bl e as tr ade s e c re ts .” ). D es pi t e the r ecogni t i on t hats om e pr ofi t abi l i t yi nform at i on m ayw arr anttr ade s ecr etpr ot ect i on, t he D i s t r i ctC our tpr oper l yr ej ect ed SI G ’ s m i s appr opr i at i on cl ai m . T he in f o rm a tio n f

o r w h ich S IG so u g h t p ro tec tio n w a s n o t it s s p e c if ic p ro f it m a rg in s o r its18

pr eci s e pr ofi t abi l i t y ; i tw as t he fa ctof i t s pr ofi t abi l i t ycoupl ed w i t h a l i m i t ed s ugges t i on of the ext entof i t s pr ofi t abi l i t y . I n part i cul ar , Fi s hki n’ s s t at ementthatN T Pr op r epr es ent at i ves w oul d be “pl eas ed” w i t h t he pr ofi t abi l i t yof SI G ’ s D ow Futur es tr adi ng m ethod i m pl i ed thatSI G w as pr ofi t abl e t o s om e ext entgr eat erthan $5 mi l l i on. A s t he D i s t r i ctC our tnot ed, t he fa ctthatFi s hki n and W i s ni ew s ki w er e maki ng m o n eyfo r S IG w as a lr ea d yk n o w n to o ther trad ers. U n d er the circu m stan ce s, F ishk in’s s t at ement , w hi l e i m pl y i ng a ce r t ai n thr es hol d of pr ofi t abi l i t y , di d nots uffi ci ent l yconvey th e e x t e n to f

S I G’ s p r o f

i t a b i l i t yt o me r i ttr a d e s e c r e tp r o t e c t i o n . I n d e e d , a tth e s a me t i me thatFi s hki n s t at ed N T Pr op w oul d be pl eas ed, he al s o decl i ned t o pr ovi de ac tual p r o f i t a b i l i ty i n f

o r m a t i o n . A s u g g e s t i o n a b o u tth e e x t e n to f a c o m p a n y’ s p r o f

i t a b i l i t y, w ith o u t m o re, i s o f li m it ed v alue to the co m p eti tor an d co u ld ea sil yb e interp reted as m ere p u f f e ry . T h u s, F ish k in ’s s tate m e n t is a k in to th e k n o w led g e o f th e “ h o tn e ss ” o f

a p ro d u c t, w hi ch the Penns y l vani a Supr eme C our thas r ej ect ed as a bas i s fortr ade s ecr etpr ot ect i on. See V an P r ods . C o. , 213 A . 2d at773, 775- 76 ( deny i ng tr ade s ecr etpr ot ect i on t o a dry i ng m achi ne manufactur erw hen i t s form erempl oy ee j oi ned a c om pet i t orand di s cl os ed fa ct th a t d e liq u e sc e n t d e sic c a n t air d ry e rs w e re “ h o t p ro d u c t[ s]” ). Ju st a s th e P e n n sy lv a n ia S u p re m e C o u rt h e ld th a t th e “ h o tn e ss ” o f a p a rticu lar p ro d u c t w a s a sc e rta in a b le to in d u stryc o m p e tit o rs in V a n P ro d u c ts , ot heri ndus t r ypart i ci pant s coul d obs erve and d e te rm in e th a t S IG ’s tr a d in g in D o w F u tu re s w a s p ro f ita b le . SI G poi nt s t o m or e r ece ntPenns y l vani a ca s e l aw i n s uppor tof i t s cl ai m fortr ade19

s ecr etpr ot ect i on. Speci fi cal l y , i n A i rP r oduct s & Chem i cal

s , I nc. v. Johns on , 442 A . 2d 1 1 1 4 (P a. S u p er. C t. 1 9 8 2 ), the S u p erior C o u rto f P en n sy lvan ia af firm ed a tri al co u rt ’s i s s uance of an i nj unct i on pr event i ng a form ervi ce- pr es i dentof A i rPr oduct s fr om part i ci pati ng i n cert ai n em ploym ent pr act i ces atL i qu i d A i r, a com peti t or of A i r Produc t s. T he A ir P ro d u c ts c o u rt f o u n d th a t “th e id e n tific a tio n o f o p p o rtu n iti e s in th e f

ield a s w e ll as the extr emel ycompl ex t echnol ogi cal pr obl ems and c om m er ci al pl ans w hi ch mustbe m ade t o expl oi tt hos e oppor tuni t i es ” cons t i tut ed i nform at i on ent i t l ed t o t r ade s ecr et p ro te c tio n . I

d. at1119. W hi l e atA i rPr oduct s , the empl oy ee ha d gai ned know l edge s peci fi c t o t he “on- s i t e” bus i nes s of i ndus t r i al gas s al es , i ncl udi ng m ethods of del i veryof o n -site g a s a n d a n a n a ly sis o f m a rk e t o p p o rtu n iti e s; L iq u id A ir w a s n o t aw a re o f th is i nform at i on. SI G cont ends t hat , l i ke the i nform at i on found pr ot ect i bl e i n A ir P ro d u c ts , the know l edge thati t s t r adi ng bus i nes s w as pr ofi t abl e t o an ext entgr eat erthan $5 mi l l i on w as “extr emel yval uabl e t o a compet i t ors i nce i tw oul d cutthe deve l opm entr i s k i nvol ved i n a s i m i l arpr oj ect . ” S e e A irP r o d u c ts , 442 A . 2d at1117. N evert hel es s , the j us t i fi cat i ons forpr ot ect i ng t he i nform at i on ati s s ue i n A ir P ro d u c ts

— sp e c if ica llyth e “ c o n sid e ra b le exp ense” o f A i r Produc t s’ res earch and the “ex t rem el ycom plex t echn ologi cal problem s” i nvol ved— ar e noti m pl i cat ed bySI G ’ s cl ai m forpr ot ect i on i n t he know l edge of the pr ofi t abi l i tyof i t s D ow Futur es t r adi ng m ethod. A ccor di ngl y , the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s deni al o f S IG ’s c laim o f

a tra d e se c re t in th e f

a c t an d e x ten t o f

th e p ro f itab ili tyo f

its D o w F a ir V alue tr ad ing m etho d w as p rop er. C . Sanct i ons20

O n M ay7, 2009, A ppel l ees Fi s hki n, C hernom zav, and TA B FG fi l ed a M ot i on for Sanct i ons agai ns tSI G forfi l i ng a fr i vol ous appea l i n vi ol at i on of Feder al R ul e of A ppel l at e Pr ocedur e 38. R ul e 38 pr ovi des that“[i ] f a c our tof appe al s det erm i nes thatan appea l i s fr i vol ous , i tm ay , aft era s epar at el yfi l ed mot i on ornot i ce f r om the courtand r eas onabl e oppor tuni t yt o r es pond, aw ar d j us tdamages and s i ngl e ordoubl e cos t s t o the a p p e lle e .” T hi s C our tappl i es an obj ect i ve s t andar d t o det erm i ne i f an a ppeal i s fr i vol ous , or w h o lly w ith o u t m e ri t. Q ui r oga v. H as br o, I nc. , 9 4 3 F . 2 d 3 4 6 , 3 4 7 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 1 ). “‘ T he t es ti s w hether , fol l ow i ng a thor ough anal y s i s of the r ecor d and ca r eful r es ear ch of the l aw , a r eas onabl e att or neyw oul d concl ude thatthe appe al i s fr i vol ous . ’ ” I d. ( quot i ng Hilm o n C o . v. H

ya tt Int’l , 8 9 9 F .2 d 2 5 0 , 2 5 3 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 0 )); s ee al s o N agl e v. A l

s pach , 8 F. 3d 141, 145 ( 3d C i r . 1993) ( “[W ] e move w i t h caut i on and w i l l notl abel an appe al fri vo l ou s unles s i tl acks co l orabl e supp ortor i s w ho l l yw i t ho ut m eri t . ”). A pp el l ees’ m ot i on s houl d be deni ed, as i tdoes notcons t i tut e partof “thatnarr ow cat egoryof a p p e a ls ” th a t R u le 3 8 is m e a n t to d is c o u ra g e . Sun Shi p, I nc. v. Mat

s on N avi gat i on C o. , 7 8 5 F . 2 d 5 9 , 6 2 (3d C ir . 1 9 8 6 ). I V . C oncl us i on B ase d o n the f

o reg o ing , w e w il l aff

irm the D istri ct C o u rt ’s de n ial o f S IG ’s di s gor gementt heoryof damages and i t s deni al of SI G ’ s cl ai m of tr ade s ecr et m isa p p ro p ria tio n . F u rth e r, w e w ill d e n yA p p e llee s’ m o tio n f o r sa n c tio n s p u rsu a n t to R u le 3 8 .