Opinion ID: 1027836
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Twelve Process Claims

Text: DII also alleges that each of twelve individual portions of the program within its source code (i.e., the twelve process claims) constitute a trade secret. The parties’ experts disagree regarding the adequacy of identification and proprietary status. DII attempts to identify each of the twelve individual components by including the lines of source code that apply or correspond to each. DII’s expert explains that the twelve alleged trade secret functions “are not located in a single location in the Code, and therefore cannot easily be isolated independent of the other code as currently written . . . .” (JA at 188) DII also contends that “the annotation of the Code which identifies the location of each of the functions eliminates this impediment to identifying their functions within the Code.” (JA at 188) DII does not describe what the lines of code teach, or how they translate to a protectable trade secret. Servo Corp. of Am. v. Con. Elec. Co., 393 F.2d 551, 554 (4th Cir. 1968) (recognizing that plaintiff’s trade secret “might consist of several discrete elements, any one of which could have been discovered by study of material available to the public . . . .”) 21 Sentia’s expert persuasively describes the difficulty in analyzing the twelve processes independently. According to Dr. Alexander, if each individual process is considered independently, the information provided by DII is incomplete and fragmented. We agree that the information on the twelve process claims is presented by DII in such a way as to prohibit meaningful analysis by Sentia, the court, or a jury. For this reason, we find that DII has not met its evidentiary burden with respect to the twelve process claims and we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment on this issue.