## Facts

- Wilson Certified Foods, Inc. manufactured a cooked bacon particle product, “Bits-O-Bacon,” using a process developed and used at its Omaha plant.
- Arden Schacht supervised the department producing Bits-O-Bacon while employed by Wilson, resigned in May 1971, and later became president of Fairbury Food Products, Inc.
- After Schacht joined Fairbury, Fairbury began manufacturing a similar cooked bacon particle product that was distributed by Feaster Foods, Inc.
- Wilson alleged defendants unlawfully appropriated Wilson’s trade secret by using Schacht’s knowledge of Wilson’s process; Wilson did not claim Schacht removed documents or other tangible materials.
- Evidence showed the method was essentially a variation of “dry rendering,” a technique known in the meat industry.
- The process was taught to and used by numerous Wilson employees in ordinary production operations.
- Wilson maintained general plant security but did not implement focused protections aimed at keeping the Bits-O-Bacon process confidential (e.g., special secrecy protocols or agreements).
- Similar bacon particle products existed in the market, and Wilson did not prove they materially differed from its product.
- Wilson lost records of the research and development for the process and could not substantiate the time, cost, or ingenuity invested.
- Expert testimony indicated a competent chemist or food technologist could devise or duplicate the process in a short time without inside assistance.

## Issues

1. Whether Wilson’s Bits-O-Bacon manufacturing process qualified as a protectable trade secret under Nebraska law (including whether it was secret, reasonably protected, and not readily ascertainable by proper means).
2. Whether defendants misappropriated a trade secret by using Schacht’s retained know-how after he left Wilson, without taking documents or other physical materials.

## Decision

- The court entered judgment for all defendants after a bench trial.
- The court held Wilson failed to prove the Bits-O-Bacon process was a protectable trade secret under Nebraska law.
- Because no protectable trade secret was shown, the court found no unlawful appropriation and denied injunctive relief and damages.

## Legal Principles

- In a diversity case, state substantive law governs; when state high-court authority is absent, a federal court may apply general trade secret principles and persuasive authorities to predict state law.
- Information is not a trade secret unless it is secret in a meaningful sense, provides value as a secret, and is not readily ascertainable or independently discoverable by proper means.
- Reasonable, affirmative steps to maintain secrecy are required; general business or plant security, without targeted confidentiality measures for the claimed secret, may be insufficient.
- The existence of similar products and the ease of lawful duplication weigh against trade secret status.
- Absent a protectable trade secret or enforceable restrictive agreement, a former employee may use general skill, experience, and know-how acquired during employment.

## Conclusion

The court concluded Wilson’s bacon-bit process lacked the secrecy, protective measures, and exclusivity needed for trade secret protection, and that defendants’ use of Schacht’s general know-how did not constitute misappropriation; Wilson therefore received no injunction or damages.


Wilson Certified Foods, Inc. v. Fairbury Food Prods., Inc., 370 F. Supp. 1081 (D. Neb. 1974)