## Facts

- Minuteman, Inc. operated a furniture stripping and refinishing business using chemical formulas and computer-stored customer-related data.
- Minuteman developed a proprietary stripping formula known as “Stripper ’76” and maintained computerized printouts and data, including a customer list and a list of individuals who responded to advertising inquiries.
- Former employees L.D. Alexander and George Cash left Minuteman and joined or assisted a competitor, Amity, Inc.
- After their departure, Minuteman discovered the Stripper ’76 formula and certain computer data/printouts were missing.
- Minuteman alleged Cash took the formula and Alexander took the customer and inquiry lists, and that the information was being used for competitive purposes.
- Minuteman sought a temporary injunction to prevent use or disclosure of the allegedly misappropriated information; the circuit court denied the request.
- The court of appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part; the Wisconsin Supreme Court granted review.

## Issues

1. What test governs whether information qualifies as a “trade secret” under Wis. Stat. § 134.90.
2. Whether improper acquisition of a trade secret, without proof of subsequent use or disclosure, constitutes “misappropriation” and supports statutory remedies.
3. Whether the possibility of reverse engineering a chemical formula precludes temporary injunctive relief.
4. Whether customer lists and advertising-inquiry lists can qualify as trade secrets under Wis. Stat. § 134.90.
5. Whether the circuit court properly exercised discretion in denying a temporary injunction concerning allegedly misappropriated computer data.

## Decision

- The Wisconsin Supreme Court held that the governing definition and framework for “trade secret” and “misappropriation” are supplied by Wis. Stat. § 134.90, with prior case law providing guidance in application.
- The Court held that improper acquisition alone constitutes “misappropriation” under § 134.90(2)(a), and statutory remedies are available even before use or disclosure occurs.
- The Court held that the mere possibility of reverse engineering does not bar a temporary injunction; it may bear on the scope or duration of injunctive relief.
- The Court held that customer lists and advertising-inquiry lists may qualify for trade secret protection if they satisfy the statutory elements.
- The Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the court of appeals and remanded to the circuit court for further proceedings consistent with the clarified standards, including reconsideration of injunctive relief.

## Legal Principles

- Trade secret status is determined under Wis. Stat. § 134.90, focusing on (1) independent economic value from not being generally known or readily ascertainable and (2) reasonable efforts to maintain secrecy.
- “Misappropriation” includes acquisition of a trade secret by improper means; proof of actual use or disclosure is not required to seek remedies under § 134.90.
- The possibility that information could be reverse engineered does not, by itself, defeat injunctive relief; it can justify limiting the injunction’s duration or breadth.
- Customer and prospect/inquiry lists are not categorically excluded from trade secret protection; they may qualify if the statutory criteria are met and supported by evidence of value and confidentiality measures.
- Temporary injunctive relief in trade secret cases must be evaluated under the correct statutory framework, and denial may require reconsideration if based on an incorrect legal standard.

## Conclusion

The court clarified that Wisconsin’s trade secret statute controls both the definition of a trade secret and the scope of remedies, allowing relief for improper acquisition alone, permitting injunctions despite potential reverse engineering, and recognizing that customer and inquiry lists may be protected when they meet statutory requirements.


Minuteman, Inc. v. Alexander, 434 N.W.2d 773 (Wis. 1989)