## Facts

- Steve Simon claimed that in 1994 he invented a device for arcade games that calculated a player’s points and printed a coupon that could be redeemed for prizes.
- At the time, similar coupon-printing devices and ticket-dispensing systems were already being marketed and used, and arcade-game companies (including Lazer-Tron) were considering using that type of technology with their games.
- Simon began trying to market his invention in late 1994 and called Lazer-Tron’s president, Norm Petermeier, to discuss it; Petermeier said Lazer-Tron was not interested.
- In October 1995, Simon met J. Richard Oltmann at a trade show and discussed the coupon device.
- Simon did not know that Oltmann had a long-standing relationship with Lazer-Tron and was friends with Petermeier.
- Oltmann expressed interest in working with Simon and met with him two more times—once at Oltmann’s office and once at Simon’s home.
- At Simon’s home, Oltmann signed a nondisclosure agreement, and Simon demonstrated the device.
- Simon described the device’s features and provided general information about estimated production costs and how it operated, but he did not provide schematics or source code and did not explain how the device was built.
- Five days after the home meeting, Oltmann told Simon he could not pursue a business deal with him; over the following days, Oltmann spoke multiple times with Lazer-Tron.
- Beginning in September 1996, Lazer-Tron began offering arcade games that included coupon printers and a coupon-redemption feature; Lazer-Tron likely began developing those games in late 1995 or early 1996.
- In late 1996 and early 1997, Simon saw advertisements and obtained marketing materials for Lazer-Tron games that included the coupon-redemption feature and a sample coupon; Simon believed the descriptions closely matched how he had described his device to Oltmann.
- Simon accused Oltmann and Lazer-Tron of stealing his ideas; Oltmann sued Simon for defamation and consumer fraud.
- Simon then sued Oltmann and Lazer-Tron, asserting (among other claims) misappropriation of trade secrets; Simon identified the coupon-redemption feature as the trade secret.
- Oltmann and Lazer-Tron moved for summary judgment.

## Issues

1. Whether Simon produced enough evidence that the alleged trade secret—his arcade-game coupon-redemption feature, as disclosed to Oltmann—qualified as a “trade secret” under the Illinois Trade Secrets Act (including secrecy and economic value from not being generally known).
2. Whether Simon produced enough evidence that Oltmann and/or Lazer-Tron misappropriated any protectable secret information, rather than using information that was already known in the arcade industry or was independently developed.

## Decision

- The court granted summary judgment for Oltmann and Lazer-Tron on Simon’s Illinois Trade Secrets Act misappropriation claim.
- The court concluded Simon failed to raise a triable issue that the information he disclosed was secret enough to receive trade-secret protection.
- The court also found the record did not support a reasonable inference that defendants used or disclosed any specific, confidential implementation details obtained from Simon.

## Legal Principles

- Under the Illinois Trade Secrets Act, a trade secret must (1) derive independent economic value from not being generally known or readily ascertainable by proper means and (2) be the subject of reasonable efforts to maintain secrecy.
- General ideas and high-level functional descriptions—especially where similar systems exist in the marketplace—do not qualify as trade secrets unless the plaintiff identifies specific, confidential details that are not publicly known.
- A nondisclosure agreement is relevant to secrecy efforts, but it does not transform a commonly known idea or general description into a trade secret.
- To survive summary judgment on misappropriation, a plaintiff must present evidence that the defendant obtained and used (or disclosed) the plaintiff’s secret information; similarity, timing, or suspicion alone is not enough without proof tied to protectable details.

## Conclusion

In *Simon v. Oltmann*, the court entered summary judgment for the defendants because Simon identified his supposed secret largely as a coupon-redemption feature and described it to Oltmann only in general terms, against a backdrop of similar industry technology, leaving insufficient evidence of a protectable trade secret or of misappropriation of specific confidential details.


Simon v. Oltmann, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13924 (2001)