## Facts

- In 1988, David Baker approached Daktronics, Inc. with an idea for a pitch-speed indicator to display the type and speed of a pitched baseball to spectators and asked Daktronics to build a prototype.
- Daktronics built a prototype by interfacing a commercially available radar gun with a console and digital display board; the components needed were readily obtainable on the market.
- Baker later partnered with Miles McAfee; they marketed the product with Daktronics at baseball-related conferences and ordered four units from Daktronics between 1988 and 1992.
- In 1996, Daktronics began manufacturing and selling pitch-speed indicators to major league ballparks on its own.
- Daktronics sued for a declaratory judgment that it had not wrongfully used Baker and McAfee’s idea.
- McAfee and Baker counterclaimed for misappropriation of trade secret, unjust enrichment, conversion, and breach of fiduciary duty.
- The trial court granted summary judgment to Daktronics on all counterclaims, and McAfee and Baker appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the disclosed pitch-speed indicator concept and related information constituted a protectible trade secret, such that Daktronics could be liable for trade-secret misappropriation.
2. Whether Daktronics owed Baker and McAfee a fiduciary duty arising from their dealings over the prototype and subsequent sales.
3. Whether conversion and unjust enrichment could proceed absent a legally protectible property interest in the idea.

## Decision

- The South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment for Daktronics on all counterclaims.
- The court held the alleged trade secret failed as a matter of law because the concept was not secret and was readily ascertainable from publicly available components and known technology.
- The court held no fiduciary duty existed because the parties’ relationship was an arm’s-length commercial arrangement, not a recognized fiduciary relationship.
- The court held conversion and unjust enrichment failed because Baker and McAfee lacked a protectible property interest in the idea.

## Legal Principles

- Information is not a trade secret when it is not secret and is readily ascertainable, including when it is assembled from commercially available components and reflects a non-proprietary concept.
- Trade-secret misappropriation requires proof of a qualifying trade secret; if no trade secret exists, the claim fails as a matter of law.
- A fiduciary duty does not arise from ordinary commercial dealings absent special trust, dominance, or a legally recognized fiduciary relationship (e.g., agency, partnership, or joint venture).
- Conversion and unjust enrichment claims based on the use of an idea require a protectible property interest; ideas in the public domain or readily ascertainable are not protectible property for these tort and restitution theories.

## Conclusion

The court upheld summary judgment for Daktronics because the pitch-speed indicator concept was not a trade secret, the parties’ dealings did not create a fiduciary relationship, and the remaining claims failed without a protectible proprietary interest in the disclosed idea.


Daktronics, Inc. v. McAfee, 599 N.W.2d 358 (S.D. 1999)