Opinion ID: 218125
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Merits of the Trade Secrets Misappropriation Claim

Text: Turning to the merits of the trade secrets misappropriation claim, the plaintiffs have failed to show a genuine dispute of material fact that, if resolved, would establish misappropriation of trade secrets. Illinois law provides the following definition of trade secret: (d) Trade secret means information, including but not limited to, technical or non-technical data, a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique, drawing, process, financial data, or list of actual or potential customers or suppliers, that: (1) is sufficiently secret to derive economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use; and (2) is the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy or confidentiality. 765 ILCS 1065/2. In their response to the summary judgment motion, Professor Ho and Ms. Huang maintained that they had a valid trade secrets misappropriation claim because the expressions of the Model had `actual or potential' economic value and because they took steps to keep their works secret. R.y1 at 13. We need not decide whether the expressions of the Model had economic value because the plaintiffs did not show, in their summary judgment papers, that the expressions of the Model had the status of secrecy. Professor Ho and Ms. Huang concede that Professor Ho's research results were partially published in a conference paper in 2001 and then published in more detail in 2002 in Ms. Huang's master's thesis. R.92 at 15. The plaintiffs, nevertheless, offer two reasons why the Model had the status of secrecy; both of these contentions fail. The plaintiffs first submit that it is expected that anyone reading that thesis and using the Model would at least cite the thesis as the source of the expression of the Model. R.91 at 13-14. Such an expectation of attribution, however, is not part of a trade secrets misappropriation claim. Once the possessor of information intentionally releases that information, the possessor can no longer make a successful trade secrets misappropriation claim because the information is not subject to reasonable efforts to maintain secrecy. Professor Ho and Ms. Huang also contend that the defendants used materials from Ho's copyrighted notebook that were not published. Id. at 14. As support for this assertion, the plaintiffs point to their statement of material facts, which refers, in turn, to Professor Ho's affidavit, submitted as Exhibit A to the plaintiffs' response to the summary judgment motion. In his affidavit, Professor Ho generally asserts that the defendants' publications included materials from one of his copyrighted, but unpublished, notebooks. See R.91, Ex. A at 9. The affidavit, however, does not specify what material allegedly was copied from Professor Ho's unpublished notebook, as opposed to that taken from Ms. Huang's published master's thesis or from other published sources. See Anderson, 477 U.S. at 256, 106 S.Ct. 2505 ([A] party opposing a properly supported motion for summary judgment may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of his pleading, but . . . must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. (internal quotation marks omitted)); Porca Co., 38 F.3d at 295 (finding the assertion of bad faith alleged in an affidavit and stated in the form of opinion and beliefs was insufficient to show a genuine issue for trial). The plaintiffs claim that the defendants used material from Professor Ho's copyrighted notebook, but they provide no specific evidence linking the material in papers published by the defendant to that found exclusively in Professor Ho's unpublished notebook. Because the plaintiffs fail to show that the expressions of the Model have a status of secrecy, their trade secrets misappropriation claim cannot survive summary judgment on the merits.