## Facts

- Ole K. Nilssen, an inventor, sought to interest Motorola in his electronic ballast technology and provided Motorola technical documents plus business and financial information about the market.
- Nilssen marked the submitted materials as confidential and asserted Motorola received them in circumstances imposing confidentiality obligations.
- Motorola declined to partner with Nilssen but later entered the electronic ballast market independently.
- Nilssen sued under Illinois law for (1) breach of confidential relationship, (2) misappropriation under the Illinois Trade Secrets Act, and (3) quantum meruit/implied contract/unjust enrichment based on alleged use of his information.
- During discovery, Nilssen initially described his alleged trade secrets in broad, vague terms, implying the materials collectively influenced Motorola’s entry into the market.
- Later, Nilssen narrowed his trade secret allegations to a smaller set of specified technical and nontechnical items.
- Both sides moved for summary judgment: Nilssen sought partial summary judgment on liability; Motorola sought summary judgment on all claims.

## Issues

1. Whether Nilssen identified alleged trade secrets with sufficient specificity and evidentiary support to proceed under the Illinois Trade Secrets Act.
2. Whether the record supported a finding of misappropriation—use or disclosure of specific protected information—rather than a generalized “springboard” theory.
3. Whether a confidential relationship existed and was breached based on the parties’ interactions and the asserted confidentiality of Nilssen’s submissions.
4. Whether quantum meruit/implied contract/unjust enrichment could apply to information voluntarily provided during preliminary negotiations, and to what extent such theories overlapped with any surviving confidentiality or trade secret claims.
5. Whether either party was entitled to summary judgment on liability given disputed facts and competing inferences.

## Decision

- Motorola’s motion for summary judgment was granted in part and denied in part.
- Nilssen’s motion for partial summary judgment on liability was denied in full.
- The court dismissed portions of the trade secret claim where the asserted “secrets” were too vague or general, publicly known, or otherwise failed statutory requirements, or lacked evidence of use.
- The court allowed narrower trade secret and confidentiality theories to proceed where specific items were identified and the record could support secrecy, reasonable efforts to maintain secrecy, access, and potential use.
- The court granted Motorola summary judgment on restitutionary theories to the extent they sought compensation for generalized idea submissions or market information shared in ordinary solicitation without evidence of an understanding of payment.
- The court permitted limited restitutionary theories to continue only insofar as they tracked the remaining allegedly confidential/protectable information that Motorola may have used.

## Legal Principles

- Summary judgment is proper only when there is no genuine dispute of material fact; courts draw reasonable (not all conceivable) inferences for the nonmovant, and evaluate each cross-motion from the opponent’s standpoint.
- Under the Illinois Trade Secrets Act, protected information must (1) derive economic value from not being generally known and (2) be subject to reasonable efforts to maintain secrecy.
- A trade secret plaintiff must identify alleged secrets with sufficient specificity to permit evaluation of secrecy and misappropriation; a broad, undifferentiated “package” theory is insufficient.
- Misappropriation requires evidence connecting specific protected information disclosed under a duty of confidentiality to the defendant’s later use or disclosure; generalized claims that information “motivated” market entry do not alone establish liability.
- A confidential relationship may arise from express or implied understandings and the circumstances of disclosure; whether such a duty existed and was breached can present fact questions.
- Quantum meruit/implied contract/unjust enrichment generally does not award compensation for voluntary preliminary disclosures absent an express agreement or circumstances showing a mutual understanding that use would require payment; any surviving restitution claim must be tied to a cognizable, improperly used confidential benefit.

## Conclusion

The court denied Nilssen’s bid for liability and partially granted Motorola summary judgment, narrowing the asserted trade secrets and limiting restitution claims, while allowing certain specifically identified trade secret and confidentiality-based theories to proceed to trial due to genuine disputes about secrecy, duty, and use.


Nilssen v. Motorola, Inc., 963 F. Supp. 664 (N.D. Ill. 1997)