IDX Systems Corp. v. Epic Systems Corp.
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
285 F.3d 581, 62 U.S.P.Q.2d 1278 (2002)
- Written by Eric Miller, JD
Facts
IDX Systems Corp. (IDX) (plaintiff) and Epic Systems Corp. (Epic) (defendant) both made financial software for medical practices. IDX sold its software package to the University of Wisconsin Medical Foundation (the foundation). The foundation later switched to Epic software. IDX brought suit in federal district court, alleging that two foundation employees (the employees) (defendants) who had formerly worked for Epic stole valuable information about the IDX software while working at the foundation and conveyed the information to Epic. The complaint alleged that the resulting improvements to Epic’s software put Epic in a position to gain the foundation’s business. IDX submitted a 43-page description of the IDX software, though the contents included generic imagery without specificity as to which elements of the software constituted trade secrets. IDX charged the employees and the foundation with misappropriating trade secrets and breaching contractual promises of confidentiality between IDX and the foundation. IDX also charged Epic with tortious inducement of the same acts. The district court dismissed the tortious-inducement claim, ruled the confidentiality agreements invalid, and granted summary judgment to the employees and the foundation on the trade-secret claim. IDX appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Easterbrook, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 806,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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.