## Facts

- Daniel Webster Pepper, Jr. developed software intended to computerize bingo games beginning in 1994.
- Charles E. Crosslin initially provided hardware and funding but later withdrew from the effort and reclaimed equipment; Pepper continued development.
- Pepper applied for copyright registration on October 2, 1995, and received a certificate effective November 13, 1995.
- Joseph I. Lerner became involved while the copyright application was pending and signed a short confidentiality agreement restricting disclosure of project information.
- Pepper provided Lerner a copy of the software and discussed updates; Stephen Patton attended at least one meeting.
- Pepper alleged that he, Lerner, and Patton agreed to market the software together, with Pepper retaining a one-half interest; Lerner and Patton formed International Gaming Systems, LLC (IGS) to sell bingo software.
- Pepper demonstrated the software to potential investors and shared information with IGS and others, often without additional nondisclosure agreements.
- Pepper alleged defendants copied attributes of his software into their own product, “Cadillac Bingo,” and asserted federal and state claims based on copying and misuse of confidential information.

## Issues

1. Whether Pepper produced sufficient evidence of copying and substantial similarity of protectable elements to support a copyright infringement claim.
2. Whether Pepper identified protectable trade secrets under Mississippi law and produced sufficient evidence of misappropriation, including evidence addressing whether the information was readily ascertainable or reverse engineerable.
3. Whether Pepper presented sufficient evidence to support related state-law claims (breach of contract, tortious interference, aiding and abetting, fraud, and civil conspiracy).

## Decision

- The court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment on all claims.
- On copyright infringement, the court found Pepper failed to present competent evidence (often requiring technical comparison) showing copying and substantial similarity of protectable elements.
- On trade-secret misappropriation, the court found Pepper failed to show the existence of trade secrets given his disclosures and inadequate secrecy measures, and failed to show misappropriation with competent proof.
- The court held the remaining state-law claims failed because they lacked evidentiary support and were largely dependent on the same unproven misappropriation/copying theory.

## Legal Principles

- On summary judgment, the nonmovant must present competent evidence creating a genuine dispute of material fact; allegations and speculation are insufficient.
- Copyright infringement requires proof of a valid copyright and copying of original, protectable elements; generalized claims of similarity without technical or comparative evidence may be insufficient.
- A trade secret requires, among other elements, that the information not be generally known or readily ascertainable and that the claimant use reasonable efforts to maintain secrecy; broad voluntary disclosure and weak confidentiality measures can defeat trade-secret status.
- For software misappropriation claims, proof may require technical evidence addressing protectability, similarity, improper acquisition/use, and whether the information could be obtained by proper means such as reverse engineering.
- Derivative tort and contract theories premised on misappropriation or copying generally fail absent proof of an underlying wrongful act and causation.

## Conclusion

The court entered summary judgment for defendants because Pepper did not present competent, technical evidence supporting copying or misappropriation, and his disclosure practices and limited secrecy measures undermined any claim that the software’s features were protectable trade secrets.


Pepper v. Int'l Gaming Sys., LLC, 312 F. Supp. 2d 853 (N.D. Miss. 2004)