3/26/00
| |||||
Click here for Trial Brief
JURY INSTRUCTIONS
JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 1 You
are to determine whether the defendant has misappropriated any trade secrets.
In order to establish a trade secret violation, plaintiffs have the burden of
proving by a preponderance of the evidence that: (1) trade secrets existed; (2) the defendant misappropriated the trade secret. ¨
765 ILCS 1065/2 JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 2 The
Illinois Trade Secrets Act defines a `trade secret' as information, which is: (1) sufficiently
secret to derive economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally
known to other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or
use; (2) is
the subject of efforts that are reasonable to maintain its secrecy or
confidentiality. ¨
765 ILCS 1065/2(d) JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 3 In
determining whether specific information is a trade secret, you may consider
the following factors: (a) The
extent to which the information was known outside of Plaintiff's business; (b) The
extent to which it was known by employees and others involved in Plaintiff'S
business; (c) The
extent of measures taken by Plaintiff's to guard the secrecy of the information; (d) The
value of the information to the Plaintiff and their competitors; (e) The
amount of effort or money expended in developing the information; (f) The
ease or difficulty with which the information could be properly acquired or
duplicated by others. ¨
ILG Industries, Inc. v. Scott,
49 Ill. 2d 88 (1971);
JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 4 A
combination of things, each of which, by itself, is generally known, can be a
trade secret where the combination, design and operation of those things form a
unique combination which is not generally known and which affords an actual or
potential competitive advantage to persons possessing that information. ¨
Thermodyne Food Serv. Prods. v.
McDonald's Corp., 940 F. Supp. 1300, n.4 (N.D. Ill. 1996) JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 5 You
[the jury] may determine that ALPHA’s efforts to maintain the secrecy of its
technology were reasonable under the circumstances even if ALPHA could have
taken additional precautions. ALPHA
need not have taken every precaution. ¨
Rockwell Graphic Sys., Inc. v. DEV
Indus., Inc., 925 F.2d 174, 179 (7th Cir. 1991) JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 6 You
[the jury] must also determine whether plaintiffs have proved by a
preponderance of the evidence that the defendants used confidential information
learned while employed at ALPHA that was not part of their general knowledge
and skills in BETA’S technologies, processes or procedures. ¨
Mangren Research and Development Corp. v.
National Chemical Co., 87 F.3d 937, 944 (7th Cir. 1996). JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 7 An
employee may take general knowledge or information he or she has developed
during their employment. ¨
Stampede,
272 Ill. App. 3d. at 590.
However,
an employee may not take confidential particularized plans or processes
developed by his employer and disclosed to him while the employer-employee relationship
exists, which are unknown to others in the industry and which give the employer
advantage over his competitors. ¨
Schulenburg v. Signatrol, Inc.,
33 Ill. 2d 379, 387 (1965). JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 8 You
[the jury] need not find a physical taking in order to find that the defendants
misappropriated any trade secret. A
trade secret can be misappropriated by memorization. If you find that the defendants memorized any information that
you find to be a protected trade secret, you may find that defendants
misappropriated ALPHA’S trade secrets ¨
Stampede,
272 Ill. App. 3d. at 590. JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 9 You
[the jury] do not have to find the defendants copied or used each and every
element of the trade secret. You may find that defendants misappropriated
ALPHA’S trade secrets even if defendant created a new product if defendants
could not have done so without use of ALPHA’S trade secret. ¨
Mangren Research and Development Corp. v.
National Chemical Co., 87 F.3d 937, (7th Cir. 1996) JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 10 Under
the ITSA, a party proving trade secret misappropriation is entitled to recover
the "actual loss caused by [the] misappropriation" as well as any
unjust enrichment not taken into account in computing actual loss. ¨
765 ILCS 1065/4(a) JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 11 In
determining BETA’S profits, you must determine BETA’S actual gain. That
means you must start with BETA’S sales . . . using the claimed trade secrets,
then you must subtract from those sales all the costs incurred by BETA that
were attributable to making the sales. ¨
C&F Packing Co. v. IBP,
Inc., 224 F.3d 1296, 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2000). JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 12 ALPHA
did not have a burden to show damages for lost profits “to a mathematical
certainty,” but rather had only to show a reasonable basis for its computation.
¨
Hemken v. First Nat’l Bank of Litchfield, 76
Ill. App. 3d 23, (Ill. App. Ct. 1979). Dated
this 13th day of April, 2001 Steven
A. Leahy Attorney for ALPHA
Optical, Inc., Plaintiff Steven
A. Leahy 57
West Erie Street, Suite 100 Chicago,
Illinois 60610 312-000-0000 Attorney
No: 000000
|
