From our private database of 14,100+ case briefs...
Bondpro Corp. v. Siemens Power Generation, Inc.
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
463 F.3d 702 (2006)
Siemens Power Generation, Inc. (Siemens) (defendant) manufactured electrical generators that used insulated copper coils. To form the insulation into the proper shape for the coils, Siemens used bowl-shaped molds and applied heat. However, this process sometimes created wrinkles in the finished form. BondPro Corp. (BondPro) (plaintiff) developed a process for shaping insulation that used a vacuum, heat, and air pressure instead of one of the bowl molds, which led to fewer wrinkles. BondPro’s process specifically used a container called an autoclave to provide the air pressure and heat. At least one other company, Torr Technologies, had also developed a method of using air pressure and heat to mold the insulation into the necessary shape. Torr Technologies described its process in advertising materials that it circulated at a trade show. BondPro approached Siemens about licensing BondPro’s insulation-molding technique. The parties signed two confidentiality agreements. The confidentiality agreements expressly excluded information that was generally known or was already known to Siemens before BondPro disclosed its process. Under these agreements, BondPro disclosed and demonstrated its insulation-molding process to Siemens. Siemens did not license BondPro’s technique. Instead, Siemens filed a patent application for an insulation-molding process that was similar to BondPro’s process except that it did not include the final step of using the autoclave. The patent application was rejected, and Siemens did not use BondPro’s process for any manufacturing. BondPro sued Siemens for theft of a trade secret, claiming that Siemens had publicly disclosed BondPro’s trade secret in the patent application. A jury found that Siemens had misappropriated BondPro’s trade secret. However, the district court granted judgment as a matter of law for Siemens. BondPro appealed.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Posner, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.
Here's why 217,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,100 briefs, keyed to 189 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.