## Facts

- BondPro Corporation, a Wisconsin company, developed a process to form insulation for generator rotor coils using vacuum, heat, and air pressure, including an autoclave step to reduce wrinkling.
- Siemens Power Generation, Inc. manufactured electrical generators and had previously used a different molding method that sometimes produced wrinkling.
- During licensing negotiations, BondPro and Siemens signed two confidentiality agreements that excluded information that was generally known or already known to Siemens.
- BondPro disclosed and demonstrated its process to Siemens, but Siemens declined to license it.
- Siemens filed a patent application describing a similar insulation-molding process; the application omitted BondPro’s final autoclave step, was ultimately rejected, and Siemens did not implement BondPro’s process in manufacturing.
- BondPro alleged Siemens misappropriated its trade secret by publicly disclosing “essential elements” of the process in the patent application, thereby destroying secrecy and value.
- A jury found Siemens liable; before any damages phase (trial was bifurcated), the district court entered judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) for Siemens. BondPro appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether BondPro proved the existence of a protectable trade secret under Wisconsin’s Uniform Trade Secrets Act (UTSA) when similar methods and elements were already known or publicly disclosed in the industry.
2. Whether BondPro presented legally sufficient evidence that the alleged trade secret had independent economic value and that Siemens’s conduct caused compensable harm (or unjust enrichment) rather than speculative loss.
3. Whether BondPro could obtain injunctive relief under the UTSA absent proof of actual or threatened use by Siemens or measurable harm from the alleged disclosure.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s JMOL for Siemens.
- The court held BondPro failed to present sufficient evidence that its claimed secret had demonstrable independent economic value or that Siemens’s patent-application disclosure caused non-speculative, compensable harm.
- The court denied injunctive relief because Siemens neither used the process nor posed a realistic threat of future use, and the record did not show ongoing harm attributable to the rejected patent application.

## Legal Principles

- Under Wisconsin’s UTSA, a trade secret must derive independent economic value from not being generally known or readily ascertainable, and the plaintiff must prove a legally cognizable remedy basis (damages, unjust enrichment, or appropriate injunctive relief).
- A claimed trade secret may consist of a combination of known elements, but as the claim relies more on public-domain components, the plaintiff’s burden increases to show that the particular combination yields distinct economic value.
- Speculative assertions that a disclosure “destroyed” secrecy are insufficient without evidence tying the alleged disclosure to concrete economic loss, lost business opportunities, or defendant’s unjust enrichment.
- Injunctive relief under the UTSA generally requires ongoing or threatened misappropriation or continuing harm; it is not warranted where there is no actual use and no realistic threat of future use.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed judgment for Siemens because BondPro did not prove that its alleged trade secret had independent economic value or that Siemens’s rejected patent application caused compensable harm, and BondPro also failed to justify injunctive relief in the absence of actual or threatened use.


Bondpro Corp. v. Siemens Power Generation, Inc., 463 F.3d 702 (7th Cir. 2006)