Nilssen v. Motorola, Inc.

963 F. Supp. 664 (1997)

From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Nilssen v. Motorola, Inc.

United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
963 F. Supp. 664 (1997)

RW

Facts

Ole Nilssen (plaintiff) repeatedly tried to interest Motorola, Inc. (defendant) in his electronic-ballast technology. As part of this effort, Nilssen provided Motorola with numerous technical documents and nontechnical business and financial information, all of which Nilssen marked as confidential. Motorola spurned Nilssen’s overtures but later decided to enter the electronic-ballast market on its own. Nilssen sued Motorola in federal court for trade-secret misappropriation. During discovery, Nilssen’s answers to Motorola’s interrogatories only vaguely described what trade secrets Nilssen accused Motorola of having misappropriated. Nilssen suggested only that the pieces of his confidential information were so interwoven that they must have motivated and provided the footing for Motorola’s decision to enter the electronic-ballast business. Eventually, however, Nilssen submitted a court memorandum that substantially narrowed his claim to a handful of technical and nontechnical items in the confidential documents he gave Motorola. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Shadur, J.)

What to do next…

  1. 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 816,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. 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.

Here's why 816,000 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 816,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership