Seng-Tiong Ho v. Taflove, 648 F.3d 489

Ho and Huang ( Northwestern University professors/graduate student) allege Taflove and Chang copied their Model's equations, figures, and text for six publications.
Key infringements center on the APS symposium paper (2003) and the OE article (2004); plaintiffs received copyright certificates in 2007 for notebooks, thesis, figures, and a presentation.
District court granted summary judgment for defendants on copyright, conversion, fraud, and trade secrets misappropriation, and held state claims preempted or meritless.
Court treated the Model as an idea under §102(b); merger doctrine applied to protect expressions only if there are no other possible expressions.
On appeal, the Seventh Circuit affirms: the Model expressions (especially equations/figures) are not protectable; preemption defeats conversion and fraud claims; trade secrets misappropriation cannot be proven due to lack of secrecy.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Copyright protectability of the Model expressions	Ho/Huang contended the Model's text could be protected as expression of a scientific idea.	Taﬄove/Chang argued the Model is an idea; merger doctrine bars protection for its expressions.	Expressions not protectable; merger doctrine applies; summary judgment for defendants.
Preemption of state-law claims by the Copyright Act	Conversion and fraud claims survive independent of copyright protection.	Copyright preempts state-law claims that are equivalent to exclusive rights under §106.	Conversion and fraud preempted; trade secrets not preempted.
Merits of the trade secrets misappropriation claim	Model expressions had economic value and secrecy; misappropriation occurred.	Secrecy not shown; information was published; no confidential relationship breach.	No genuine dispute on secrecy; misappropriation not proven.
Effect of reconsideration motion on the ruling	New evidence and arguments warranted reconsideration.	No manifest error or new evidence; motion appropriately denied.	District court did not abuse discretion; affirmed.

American Dental Ass'n v. Delta Dental Plans Ass'n, 126 F.3d 977 (7th Cir. 1997) (fact-expression dichotomy under §102(b))
Baltimore Orioles, Inc. v. Major League Baseball Players Ass'n, 805 F.2d 663 (7th Cir. 1986) (preemption scope under §301(a))
Bucklew v. Hawkins, Ash, Baptie & Co., LLP, 329 F.3d 923 (7th Cir. 2003) (merger doctrine and protection limits)
Feist Publ'ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340 (Supreme Court 1991) (facts vs. original expression; idea-expression dichotomy)
Flick-Reedy Corp. v. Hydro-Line Manufacturing Co., 351 F.2d 546 (7th Cir. 1965) (protects creative presentation, not substance when present in public domain)
Situation Management Systems, Inc. v. ASP Consulting LLC, 560 F.3d 53 (1st Cir. 2009) (protects expression of processes/systems as copyrightable)
Toney v. L'Oreal USA, Inc., 406 F.3d 905 (7th Cir. 2005) (preemption of state claims when rights are equivalent to copyright)
R.W. Beck, Inc. v. E3 Consulting, LLC, 577 F.3d 1133 (10th Cir. 2009) (preemption with respect to uncopyrightable material)
Daboub v. Gibbons, 42 F.3d 289 (5th Cir. 1995) (discusses scope of preemption and non-preemption when appropriate)
Situation Management Systems, Inc. v. ASP Consulting LLC, 560 F.3d 53 (1st Cir. 2009) (creativity in describing processes may be protected)