{ "attribution": { "source": "legal.exploreworldai.com", "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca7-25-1577-2026-07-30", "cite_as": "NovaCopilot, legal.exploreworldai.com (https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca7-25-1577-2026-07-30)", "license": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/revision", "version": "legal-2026-09-28", "fingerprint": "ewai:se:3cf8a5", "proof": "sha256:7063687c84a19c3468e5976b515b1397680845b05e3a5f10d438c9f879954e74", "jurisdiction": "se", "lang": "en", "publisher": "NovaCopilot by ExploreWorld Legal", "terms": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/om" }, "brand_source": "Source: NovaCopilot", "brand": { "product": "NovaCopilot", "platform": "ExploreWorldAI", "infrastructure": "ExploreWorld Legal", "infrastructure_url": "legal.exploreworldai.com", "legal_entity": "Valkiv Ventures AB", "permanent_url": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/novacopilot", "source": "Source: NovaCopilot", "powered_by": "Powered by NovaCopilot", "license": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/licensvillkor", "contact": "stig@valkiv.com" }, "item": { "schema_version": "1.0.0", "id": "us:ca7-25-1577-2026-07-30", "jurisdiction": "us", "lang": "en", "brand_source": "Source: NovaCopilot", "brand": { "product": "NovaCopilot", "platform": "ExploreWorldAI", "infrastructure": "ExploreWorld Legal", "infrastructure_url": "legal.exploreworldai.com", "legal_entity": "Valkiv Ventures AB", "permanent_url": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/novacopilot", "source": "Source: NovaCopilot", "powered_by": "Powered by NovaCopilot", "license": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/licensvillkor", "contact": "stig@valkiv.com" }, "sections": [ { "title": "In the", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "United States Court of Appeals", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "For the Seventh Circuit", "paragraphs": [ "para_4" ] }, { "title": "No. 25-1577", "paragraphs": [ "para_6", "para_7", "para_8", "para_9", "para_10", "para_11" ] }, { "title": "Appeal from the United States District Court for the", "paragraphs": [ "para_13", "para_14", "para_15" ] }, { "title": "ARGUED OCTOBER 28, 2025 — DECIDED JULY 30, 2026", "paragraphs": [ "para_17" ] }, { "title": "Before BRENNAN, Chief Judge, and JACKSON-AKIWUMI and", "paragraphs": [ "para_19" ] }, { "title": "JACKSON-AKIWUMI, Circuit Judge. This case is a dispute be-", "paragraphs": [ "para_21", "para_22" ] }, { "title": "Bank PLC, first hired Arkeyo LLC for the job. When Arkeyo’s", "paragraphs": [ "para_24" ] }, { "title": "UK, a subsidiary of Chicago-based Saggezza, Inc., to develop", "paragraphs": [ "para_26" ] }, { "title": "2 No. 25-1577", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Inc., while developing the new software, infringed Arkeyo’s", "paragraphs": [ "para_29" ] }, { "title": "Arkeyo’s contract and business relationship with Metro, and", "paragraphs": [ "para_31", "para_32", "para_33", "para_34", "para_35", "para_36" ] }, { "title": "I", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Metro hired Arkeyo in 2010 to design software for Metro’s", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Magic Money Machines, which are coin-counting machines", "paragraphs": [ "para_40" ] }, { "title": "Metro memorialized their relationship in a contract. The con-", "paragraphs": [ "para_42", "para_43", "para_44" ] }, { "title": "By 2015, Arkeyo’s software had become outdated and vul-", "paragraphs": [ "para_46", "para_47", "para_48", "para_49" ] }, { "title": "The idea was that Saggezza UK could use the computer as a", "paragraphs": [ "para_51", "para_52", "para_53", "para_54", "para_55", "para_56", "para_57", "para_58" ] }, { "title": "No. 25-1577 3", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Metro and Saggezza UK then executed a “framework ser-", "paragraphs": [ "para_61", "para_62", "para_63", "para_64", "para_65", "para_66" ] }, { "title": "Arkeyo responded with a number of lawsuits against vir-", "paragraphs": [ "para_68" ] }, { "title": "These cases included separate lawsuits against Metro and the", "paragraphs": [ "para_70", "para_71" ] }, { "title": "2:18-CV-01012 (E.D. Pa.); Arkeyo, LLC v. Cummins Allison", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Corp., 342 F. Supp. 3d 622 (E.D. Pa. 2017). Arkeyo also filed a", "paragraphs": [ "para_74", "para_75" ] }, { "title": "In the instant lawsuit filed in the Northern District of Illi-", "paragraphs": [ "para_77", "para_78", "para_79", "para_80" ] }, { "title": "Per the district court, this omission was fatal to Arkeyo’s", "paragraphs": [ "para_82" ] }, { "title": "Saggezza, Inc., on all claims because the record did not show", "paragraphs": [ "para_84" ] }, { "title": "UK—was responsible for any of the alleged infringing or tor-", "paragraphs": [ "para_86", "para_87", "para_88", "para_89" ] }, { "title": "See Forsythe v. Clark USA, Inc., 864 N.E.2d 227, 237 (Ill. 2007)", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "4 No. 25-1577", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "(holding that parent company can be liable for acts of a sub-", "paragraphs": [ "para_93", "para_94", "para_95", "para_96", "para_97", "para_98", "para_99", "para_100" ] }, { "title": "Arkeyo asked the district court to reconsider on grounds of", "paragraphs": [ "para_102", "para_103", "para_104", "para_105", "para_106" ] }, { "title": "Arkeyo’s claims. Instead, the district court noted, Arkeyo had", "paragraphs": [ "para_108", "para_109" ] }, { "title": "At the same time as it denied Arkeyo’s motion for recon-", "paragraphs": [ "para_111" ] }, { "title": "Saggezza, Inc., under the fee-shifting provisions of the Copy-", "paragraphs": [ "para_113" ] }, { "title": "18 U.S.C. § 1836. Arkeyo appeals each of the district court’s", "paragraphs": [ "para_115" ] }, { "title": "II", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "We begin with the district court’s grant of summary judg-", "paragraphs": [ "para_118" ] }, { "title": "856, 862 (7th Cir. 2025). We must construe all facts in Arkeyo’s", "paragraphs": [ "para_120", "para_121" ] }, { "title": "No. 25-1577 5", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "The district court resolved all the claims on grounds that", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Saggezza, Inc., could not be liable for any of the allegedly in-", "paragraphs": [ "para_125", "para_126", "para_127", "para_128", "para_129" ] }, { "title": "754, 787 (7th Cir. 2024) (en banc) (we may affirm summary", "paragraphs": [ "para_131" ] }, { "title": "A. Copyright Infringement", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Of Arkeyo’s several claims, we turn first to the copyright", "paragraphs": [ "para_134", "para_135", "para_136", "para_137" ] }, { "title": "Saggezza’s alleged copying of Arkeyo’s source code, one for", "paragraphs": [ "para_139" ] }, { "title": "See Cox Commc’ns, Inc. v. Sony Music Ent., 146 S. Ct. 959, 964", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "(2026) (defining direct and contributory copyright infringe-", "paragraphs": [ "para_142", "para_143", "para_144", "para_145" ] }, { "title": "499 U.S. at 361 (copyright plaintiff must establish copying in", "paragraphs": [ "para_147" ] }, { "title": "Arkeyo’s copyright claims fail on this basis: there’s no ev-", "paragraphs": [ "para_149" ] }, { "title": "Saggezza’s software contains any protectable elements of", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "1 Hereinafter we refer to all the Saggezza entities as “Saggezza” unless", "paragraphs": [ "para_152" ] }, { "title": "6 No. 25-1577", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Arkeyo’s source code. Even Arkeyo’s expert witness did not", "paragraphs": [ "para_155", "para_156" ] }, { "title": "Notwithstanding this evidentiary shortcoming, Arkeyo", "paragraphs": [ "para_158", "para_159", "para_160", "para_161", "para_162", "para_163", "para_164" ] }, { "title": "Arkeyo argues these similarities defy coincidence. Citing", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Bucklew v. Hawkins, Ash, Baptie & Co., Arkeyo says that the", "paragraphs": [ "para_167", "para_168", "para_169", "para_170" ] }, { "title": "Bucklew does not do the work Arkeyo asks of it. In that", "paragraphs": [ "para_172", "para_173", "para_174", "para_175", "para_176" ] }, { "title": "Homes, Inc., 858 F.3d 1093, 1100 n.3 (7th Cir. 2017) (discussing", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Bucklew, 329 F.3d at 926–27). Here, by contrast, the record", "paragraphs": [ "para_179" ] }, { "title": "Arkeyo’s. The programs run on different versions of Win-", "paragraphs": [ "para_181", "para_182" ] }, { "title": "Arkeyo’s code, reflecting a fundamentally different software", "paragraphs": [ "para_184" ] }, { "title": "No. 25-1577 7", "paragraphs": [ "para_186", "para_187" ] }, { "title": "Summary judgment was proper on Arkeyo’s copyright", "paragraphs": [ "para_189" ] }, { "title": "B. Trade Secret Misappropriation", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Arkeyo next claims Saggezza misappropriated trade se-", "paragraphs": [ "para_192" ] }, { "title": "Secrets Act. Under this statute, information qualifies as a", "paragraphs": [ "para_194", "para_195", "para_196", "para_197", "para_198", "para_199", "para_200", "para_201", "para_202" ] }, { "title": "We note at the outset that it is not entirely clear what in-", "paragraphs": [ "para_204", "para_205", "para_206", "para_207", "para_208" ] }, { "title": "Arkeyo’s claim regarding the source code fails under the", "paragraphs": [ "para_210", "para_211", "para_212", "para_213", "para_214", "para_215" ] }, { "title": "8 No. 25-1577", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Arkeyo argues it did not publicly disclose its source code", "paragraphs": [ "para_218", "para_219" ] }, { "title": "Arkeyo’s expert compared the URL to “a password with 27", "paragraphs": [ "para_221", "para_222" ] }, { "title": "15 characters of the URL were anything but random; they", "paragraphs": [ "para_224", "para_225", "para_226" ] }, { "title": "This public disclosure forecloses Arkeyo’s trade secrets claim", "paragraphs": [ "para_228" ] }, { "title": "As to Arkeyo’s claim regarding the specific features of its", "paragraphs": [ "para_230", "para_231", "para_232" ] }, { "title": "Arkeyo’s most detailed formulation of its trade secret claim", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "(in its expert report) mostly lists “functionalities” that would", "paragraphs": [ "para_235", "para_236", "para_237", "para_238", "para_239", "para_240" ] }, { "title": "2002) (“Things that any user or passer-by sees at a glance are", "paragraphs": [ "para_242" ] }, { "title": "To be fair, some other functions over which Arkeyo claims", "paragraphs": [ "para_244", "para_245", "para_246", "para_247" ] }, { "title": "No. 25-1577 9", "paragraphs": [ "para_249" ] }, { "title": "Spine, Inc., 8 F.4th 531, 540 (7th Cir. 2021) (quoting Composite", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Marine Propellers, Inc. v. Van Der Woude, 962 F.2d 1263, 1266", "paragraphs": [ "para_252" ] }, { "title": "At bottom, most of Arkeyo’s supposed trade secrets were", "paragraphs": [ "para_254", "para_255" ] }, { "title": "C. Tortious Interference", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Next are Arkeyo’s claims for tortious interference with a", "paragraphs": [ "para_258", "para_259", "para_260", "para_261", "para_262", "para_263", "para_264", "para_265", "para_266", "para_267" ] }, { "title": "Servs. Cent., Inc., 2023 IL App (1st) 221352, ¶ 67 (citation mod-", "paragraphs": [ "para_269" ] }, { "title": "1991). Similarly, a claim for tortious interference with a pro-", "paragraphs": [ "para_271", "para_272", "para_273", "para_274", "para_275", "para_276", "para_277", "para_278" ] }, { "title": "10 No. 25-1577", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Both torts share an important limiting principle: “legiti-", "paragraphs": [ "para_281", "para_282" ] }, { "title": "N.E.2d 1011, 1019 (Ill. 2008). In other words, “one may not", "paragraphs": [ "para_284", "para_285", "para_286" ] }, { "title": "Ct. 2008) (citation omitted). “Wrongful means” include un-", "paragraphs": [ "para_288", "para_289" ] }, { "title": "210157, ¶¶ 57–58; Restatement (Second) of Torts § 767 cmt. c", "paragraphs": [ "para_291" ] }, { "title": "Arkeyo’s tortious-interference claims run headfirst into", "paragraphs": [ "para_293", "para_294", "para_295" ] }, { "title": "Money Machine while the agreement was still in effect. But", "paragraphs": [ "para_297" ] }, { "title": "Arkeyo’s competitor, to offer a better product to convince", "paragraphs": [ "para_299" ] }, { "title": "Inc. v. Emerson Elec. Co., 956 F.2d 1399, 1405 (7th Cir. 1992) (no", "paragraphs": [ "para_301", "para_302" ] }, { "title": "Arkeyo offer any reason to think that Saggezza was motivated", "paragraphs": [ "para_304", "para_305", "para_306" ] }, { "title": "Court of Illinois has explained, Illinois law “allows one to di-", "paragraphs": [ "para_308", "para_309", "para_310" ] }, { "title": "No. 25-1577 11", "paragraphs": [ "para_312", "para_313" ] }, { "title": "Indeed, the only “wrongful” acts that Arkeyo points to are", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Saggezza’s purported copyright infringement, trade secret", "paragraphs": [ "para_316", "para_317", "para_318", "para_319", "para_320", "para_321", "para_322", "para_323" ] }, { "title": "D. Conversion", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Arkeyo’s final claim is for conversion, based on", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Saggezza’s allegedly unlawful possession of the Arkeyo", "paragraphs": [ "para_327", "para_328", "para_329", "para_330", "para_331", "para_332", "para_333", "para_334", "para_335" ] }, { "title": "Saggezza’s temporary possession and use of the Arkeyo", "paragraphs": [ "para_337", "para_338", "para_339" ] }, { "title": "Arkeyo, owned the touchscreen computer that Metro loaned", "paragraphs": [ "para_341" ] }, { "title": "12 No. 25-1577", "paragraphs": [ "para_343", "para_344" ] }, { "title": "Arkeyo’s conversion claim also fails on the demand ele-", "paragraphs": [ "para_346", "para_347", "para_348", "para_349", "para_350" ] }, { "title": "F.3d 735, 741 (7th Cir. 2016). Arkeyo has not argued, much", "paragraphs": [ "para_352", "para_353", "para_354", "para_355", "para_356", "para_357", "para_358" ] }, { "title": "F.4th 618, 629 (7th Cir. 2022) (conclusory arguments lacking a", "paragraphs": [ "para_360", "para_361" ] }, { "title": "III", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "We now consider Arkeyo’s request for sanctions. Arkeyo", "paragraphs": [ "para_364", "para_365", "para_366", "para_367", "para_368" ] }, { "title": "Saggezza copied Arkeyo’s code). Arkeyo invokes Federal", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Rule of Civil Procedure 37(e)(2), which authorizes sanctions", "paragraphs": [ "para_371", "para_372" ] }, { "title": "We review the district court’s decision to deny sanctions for", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "No. 25-1577 13", "paragraphs": [ "para_375", "para_376" ] }, { "title": "At the outset, we note that the district court did not dis-", "paragraphs": [ "para_378", "para_379", "para_380", "para_381", "para_382" ] }, { "title": "1993); see also Szabo Food Serv., Inc. v. Canteen Corp., 823 F.2d", "paragraphs": [ "para_384" ] }, { "title": "Such is the case here. Arkeyo’s spoliation claims consist", "paragraphs": [ "para_386", "para_387", "para_388", "para_389" ] }, { "title": "But Saggezza’s project manager testified that Saggezza did", "paragraphs": [ "para_391", "para_392", "para_393", "para_394" ] }, { "title": "Similarly, Arkeyo’s assertion that there exists another ver-", "paragraphs": [ "para_396", "para_397", "para_398", "para_399", "para_400" ] }, { "title": "781 (7th Cir. 2016) (party moving for sanctions has the burden", "paragraphs": [ "para_402", "para_403", "para_404" ] }, { "title": "14 No. 25-1577", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Arkeyo’s case, we affirm the district court’s denial of sanc-", "paragraphs": [ "para_407" ] }, { "title": "IV", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "We turn to Arkeyo’s motion to reconsider the judgment", "paragraphs": [ "para_410" ] }, { "title": "Arkeyo sought reconsideration of the district court’s sum-", "paragraphs": [ "para_412", "para_413", "para_414", "para_415", "para_416", "para_417", "para_418", "para_419" ] }, { "title": "Arkeyo’s request for reconsideration did not clear this", "paragraphs": [ "para_421", "para_422", "para_423", "para_424", "para_425", "para_426" ] }, { "title": "F.3d 661, 666 (7th Cir. 2014). In fact, the document Arkeyo", "paragraphs": [ "para_428", "para_429", "para_430", "para_431", "para_432" ] }, { "title": "V", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Lastly, Arkeyo contends the district court abused its dis-", "paragraphs": [ "para_435" ] }, { "title": "No. 25-1577 15", "paragraphs": [ "para_437", "para_438", "para_439", "para_440", "para_441", "para_442" ] }, { "title": "We therefore affirm the award of fees under the Copyright", "paragraphs": [ "para_444" ] }, { "title": "The district court alternatively awarded fees to Saggezza", "paragraphs": [ "para_446", "para_447", "para_448", "para_449", "para_450", "para_451", "para_452" ] }, { "title": "VI", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "For the reasons above, the district court’s decisions are", "paragraphs": [ "para_455" ] } ], "paragraphs": [ { "text": "In the", "paragraph_id": "para_1" }, { "text": "United States Court of Appeals", "paragraph_id": "para_2" }, { "text": "For the Seventh Circuit", "paragraph_id": "para_3" }, { "text": "____________________", "paragraph_id": "para_4" }, { "text": "No. 25-1577", "paragraph_id": "para_5" }, { "text": "ARKEYO LLC,", "paragraph_id": "para_6" }, { "text": "Plaintiff-Appellant,", "paragraph_id": "para_7" }, { "text": "v.", "paragraph_id": "para_8" }, { "text": "SAGGEZZA, INC.,", "paragraph_id": "para_9" }, { "text": "Defendant-Appellee.", "paragraph_id": "para_10" }, { "text": "____________________", "paragraph_id": "para_11" }, { "text": "Appeal from the United States District Court for the", "paragraph_id": "para_12" }, { "text": "Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.", "paragraph_id": "para_13" }, { "text": "No. 1:19-cv-08112 — Elaine E. Bucklo, Judge.", "paragraph_id": "para_14" }, { "text": "____________________", "paragraph_id": "para_15" }, { "text": "ARGUED OCTOBER 28, 2025 — DECIDED JULY 30, 2026", "paragraph_id": "para_16" }, { "text": "____________________", "paragraph_id": "para_17" }, { "text": "Before BRENNAN, Chief Judge, and JACKSON-AKIWUMI and", "paragraph_id": "para_18" }, { "text": "LEE, Circuit Judges.", "paragraph_id": "para_19" }, { "text": "JACKSON-AKIWUMI, Circuit Judge. This case is a dispute be-", "paragraph_id": "para_20" }, { "text": "tween two companies that developed software for the coin-", "paragraph_id": "para_21" }, { "text": "counting machines at a bank. The bank, UK-based Metro", "paragraph_id": "para_22" }, { "text": "Bank PLC, first hired Arkeyo LLC for the job. When Arkeyo’s", "paragraph_id": "para_23" }, { "text": "software began showing its age, Metro employed Saggezza", "paragraph_id": "para_24" }, { "text": "UK, a subsidiary of Chicago-based Saggezza, Inc., to develop", "paragraph_id": "para_25" }, { "text": "a more modern replacement. Arkeyo claims that Saggezza,", "paragraph_id": "para_26" }, { "text": "2 No. 25-1577", "paragraph_id": "para_27" }, { "text": "Inc., while developing the new software, infringed Arkeyo’s", "paragraph_id": "para_28" }, { "text": "copyrights and trade secrets, tortiously interfered with", "paragraph_id": "para_29" }, { "text": "Arkeyo’s contract and business relationship with Metro, and", "paragraph_id": "para_30" }, { "text": "converted Arkeyo’s property. Arkeyo did not prevail on any", "paragraph_id": "para_31" }, { "text": "of these claims in the district court. The district court granted", "paragraph_id": "para_32" }, { "text": "summary judgment for Saggezza, Inc., denied Arkeyo’s mo-", "paragraph_id": "para_33" }, { "text": "tion for relief from the judgment, denied Arkeyo’s request for", "paragraph_id": "para_34" }, { "text": "spoliation sanctions, and granted Saggezza, Inc.’s motion for", "paragraph_id": "para_35" }, { "text": "attorney’s fees. We affirm in all respects.", "paragraph_id": "para_36" }, { "text": "I", "paragraph_id": "para_37" }, { "text": "Metro hired Arkeyo in 2010 to design software for Metro’s", "paragraph_id": "para_38" }, { "text": "Magic Money Machines, which are coin-counting machines", "paragraph_id": "para_39" }, { "text": "customers can use in Metro’s retail branches. Arkeyo and", "paragraph_id": "para_40" }, { "text": "Metro memorialized their relationship in a contract. The con-", "paragraph_id": "para_41" }, { "text": "tract stipulated that Metro agreed to pay Arkeyo for software", "paragraph_id": "para_42" }, { "text": "and coin-counting services on a per-machine basis for ten", "paragraph_id": "para_43" }, { "text": "years after an Arkeyo-operated machine was installed.", "paragraph_id": "para_44" }, { "text": "By 2015, Arkeyo’s software had become outdated and vul-", "paragraph_id": "para_45" }, { "text": "nerable to security threats. So in November of that year, Metro", "paragraph_id": "para_46" }, { "text": "began talks with Saggezza UK to make new software for the", "paragraph_id": "para_47" }, { "text": "machines. In March 2016, Metro delivered an Arkeyo", "paragraph_id": "para_48" }, { "text": "touchscreen computer to Saggezza, Inc.’s office in Chicago.", "paragraph_id": "para_49" }, { "text": "The idea was that Saggezza UK could use the computer as a", "paragraph_id": "para_50" }, { "text": "reference point for the user experience and certain features", "paragraph_id": "para_51" }, { "text": "that Metro wanted the new software to include. The", "paragraph_id": "para_52" }, { "text": "touchscreen computer contained only an “executable” ver-", "paragraph_id": "para_53" }, { "text": "sion of Arkeyo’s software—that is, a version of the software", "paragraph_id": "para_54" }, { "text": "in its final, consumer-facing format. Saggezza UK spent a few", "paragraph_id": "para_55" }, { "text": "days tinkering, but was unable to log into the computer and", "paragraph_id": "para_56" }, { "text": "ultimately did not use the computer to develop its new soft-", "paragraph_id": "para_57" }, { "text": "ware.", "paragraph_id": "para_58" }, { "text": "No. 25-1577 3", "paragraph_id": "para_59" }, { "text": "Metro and Saggezza UK then executed a “framework ser-", "paragraph_id": "para_60" }, { "text": "vices agreement” and “statement of work” for Saggezza UK", "paragraph_id": "para_61" }, { "text": "to create the new software. Saggezza UK then contracted sep-", "paragraph_id": "para_62" }, { "text": "arately with Saggezza, Inc., and another of Saggezza, Inc.’s", "paragraph_id": "para_63" }, { "text": "subsidiaries, Saggezza India, to perform services in connec-", "paragraph_id": "para_64" }, { "text": "tion with the job for Metro. Saggezza UK delivered the last", "paragraph_id": "para_65" }, { "text": "version of the completed software to Metro in December 2016.", "paragraph_id": "para_66" }, { "text": "Arkeyo responded with a number of lawsuits against vir-", "paragraph_id": "para_67" }, { "text": "tually everyone involved in developing the new software.", "paragraph_id": "para_68" }, { "text": "These cases included separate lawsuits against Metro and the", "paragraph_id": "para_69" }, { "text": "machines’ hardware manufacturer, Cummins-Allison, in", "paragraph_id": "para_70" }, { "text": "Pennsylvania federal court. See Arkeyo, LLC v. Metro Bank PLC,", "paragraph_id": "para_71" }, { "text": "2:18-CV-01012 (E.D. Pa.); Arkeyo, LLC v. Cummins Allison", "paragraph_id": "para_72" }, { "text": "Corp., 342 F. Supp. 3d 622 (E.D. Pa. 2017). Arkeyo also filed a", "paragraph_id": "para_73" }, { "text": "lawsuit against Metro in the UK. See Arkeyo, LLC v. Metro Bank", "paragraph_id": "para_74" }, { "text": "PLC, Case No. IL-2022-000039 [2022] EWHC (Ch) (Eng.).", "paragraph_id": "para_75" }, { "text": "In the instant lawsuit filed in the Northern District of Illi-", "paragraph_id": "para_76" }, { "text": "nois, Arkeyo asserted claims against Saggezza, Inc., for direct", "paragraph_id": "para_77" }, { "text": "and contributory copyright infringement, misappropriation", "paragraph_id": "para_78" }, { "text": "of trade secrets, tortious interference, and conversion. Arkeyo", "paragraph_id": "para_79" }, { "text": "did not, however, name Saggezza UK as a defendant.", "paragraph_id": "para_80" }, { "text": "Per the district court, this omission was fatal to Arkeyo’s", "paragraph_id": "para_81" }, { "text": "entire case. The district court granted summary judgment for", "paragraph_id": "para_82" }, { "text": "Saggezza, Inc., on all claims because the record did not show", "paragraph_id": "para_83" }, { "text": "that Saggezza, Inc.,—as opposed to its subsidiary Saggezza", "paragraph_id": "para_84" }, { "text": "UK—was responsible for any of the alleged infringing or tor-", "paragraph_id": "para_85" }, { "text": "tious conduct. The district court further explained that noth-", "paragraph_id": "para_86" }, { "text": "ing in the record showed that Saggezza, Inc., directed or au-", "paragraph_id": "para_87" }, { "text": "thorized the alleged misconduct, meaning it could not be lia-", "paragraph_id": "para_88" }, { "text": "ble for its subsidiary’s conduct under a “veil piercing” theory.", "paragraph_id": "para_89" }, { "text": "See Forsythe v. Clark USA, Inc., 864 N.E.2d 227, 237 (Ill. 2007)", "paragraph_id": "para_90" }, { "text": "4 No. 25-1577", "paragraph_id": "para_91" }, { "text": "(holding that parent company can be liable for acts of a sub-", "paragraph_id": "para_92" }, { "text": "sidiary if it “specifically directs an activity [of the subsidiary],", "paragraph_id": "para_93" }, { "text": "where injury is foreseeable”). In granting summary judgment", "paragraph_id": "para_94" }, { "text": "for Saggezza, Inc., the district court terminated the case with-", "paragraph_id": "para_95" }, { "text": "out addressing Arkeyo’s then-pending motion for spoliation", "paragraph_id": "para_96" }, { "text": "sanctions. In that motion, Arkeyo claimed Saggezza, Inc., de-", "paragraph_id": "para_97" }, { "text": "stroyed evidence in violation of its discovery obligations. See", "paragraph_id": "para_98" }, { "text": "Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(e).", "paragraph_id": "para_99" }, { "text": "After the unfavorable summary judgment decision,", "paragraph_id": "para_100" }, { "text": "Arkeyo asked the district court to reconsider on grounds of", "paragraph_id": "para_101" }, { "text": "newly discovered evidence. Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). The “new", "paragraph_id": "para_102" }, { "text": "evidence” was purportedly source code produced in the UK", "paragraph_id": "para_103" }, { "text": "litigation between Arkeyo and Metro. The district court de-", "paragraph_id": "para_104" }, { "text": "nied the reconsideration motion, noting Arkeyo had not pro-", "paragraph_id": "para_105" }, { "text": "duced the source code or even described how it supported", "paragraph_id": "para_106" }, { "text": "Arkeyo’s claims. Instead, the district court noted, Arkeyo had", "paragraph_id": "para_107" }, { "text": "merely rehashed the same points the summary judgment de-", "paragraph_id": "para_108" }, { "text": "cision rejected.", "paragraph_id": "para_109" }, { "text": "At the same time as it denied Arkeyo’s motion for recon-", "paragraph_id": "para_110" }, { "text": "sideration, the district court awarded attorneys’ fees to", "paragraph_id": "para_111" }, { "text": "Saggezza, Inc., under the fee-shifting provisions of the Copy-", "paragraph_id": "para_112" }, { "text": "right Act, 17 U.S.C. § 505, and the Defend Trade Secrets Act,", "paragraph_id": "para_113" }, { "text": "18 U.S.C. § 1836. Arkeyo appeals each of the district court’s", "paragraph_id": "para_114" }, { "text": "rulings.", "paragraph_id": "para_115" }, { "text": "II", "paragraph_id": "para_116" }, { "text": "We begin with the district court’s grant of summary judg-", "paragraph_id": "para_117" }, { "text": "ment, which we review de novo. Rabenhorst v. Noem, 162 F.4th", "paragraph_id": "para_118" }, { "text": "856, 862 (7th Cir. 2025). We must construe all facts in Arkeyo’s", "paragraph_id": "para_119" }, { "text": "favor and grant Arkeyo the benefit of all reasonable infer-", "paragraph_id": "para_120" }, { "text": "ences that may be drawn from those facts. Id.", "paragraph_id": "para_121" }, { "text": "No. 25-1577 5", "paragraph_id": "para_122" }, { "text": "The district court resolved all the claims on grounds that", "paragraph_id": "para_123" }, { "text": "Saggezza, Inc., could not be liable for any of the allegedly in-", "paragraph_id": "para_124" }, { "text": "fringing or tortious acts of its subsidiary, Saggezza UK. The", "paragraph_id": "para_125" }, { "text": "district court held in the alternative that Arkeyo did not offer", "paragraph_id": "para_126" }, { "text": "“legal authority nor reasoned analysis” to support any of its", "paragraph_id": "para_127" }, { "text": "claims. We take this second path and review each claim on its", "paragraph_id": "para_128" }, { "text": "merits. Gilbank v. Wood Cnty. Dep't of Hum. Servs., 111 F.4th", "paragraph_id": "para_129" }, { "text": "754, 787 (7th Cir. 2024) (en banc) (we may affirm summary", "paragraph_id": "para_130" }, { "text": "judgment on any basis supported by the record).", "paragraph_id": "para_131" }, { "text": "A. Copyright Infringement", "paragraph_id": "para_132" }, { "text": "Of Arkeyo’s several claims, we turn first to the copyright", "paragraph_id": "para_133" }, { "text": "claims. Copyright law prohibits copying original elements of", "paragraph_id": "para_134" }, { "text": "a work in which the author has a valid copyright. Feist Publ’ns,", "paragraph_id": "para_135" }, { "text": "Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340, 361 (1991); 17 U.S.C.", "paragraph_id": "para_136" }, { "text": "§ 501. Arkeyo brings two copyright claims based on", "paragraph_id": "para_137" }, { "text": "Saggezza’s alleged copying of Arkeyo’s source code, one for", "paragraph_id": "para_138" }, { "text": "direct infringement and one for contributory infringement.1", "paragraph_id": "para_139" }, { "text": "See Cox Commc’ns, Inc. v. Sony Music Ent., 146 S. Ct. 959, 964", "paragraph_id": "para_140" }, { "text": "(2026) (defining direct and contributory copyright infringe-", "paragraph_id": "para_141" }, { "text": "ment). Both types of infringement require a copyright plain-", "paragraph_id": "para_142" }, { "text": "tiff to show that, “as a factual matter, the defendant copied", "paragraph_id": "para_143" }, { "text": "the plaintiff’s protected work.” Richardson v. Kharbouch, 156", "paragraph_id": "para_144" }, { "text": "F.4th 849, 856 (7th Cir. 2025) (citation omitted); see also Feist,", "paragraph_id": "para_145" }, { "text": "499 U.S. at 361 (copyright plaintiff must establish copying in", "paragraph_id": "para_146" }, { "text": "order to show infringement).", "paragraph_id": "para_147" }, { "text": "Arkeyo’s copyright claims fail on this basis: there’s no ev-", "paragraph_id": "para_148" }, { "text": "idence of copying. Nothing in the record suggests that", "paragraph_id": "para_149" }, { "text": "Saggezza’s software contains any protectable elements of", "paragraph_id": "para_150" }, { "text": "1 Hereinafter we refer to all the Saggezza entities as “Saggezza” unless", "paragraph_id": "para_151" }, { "text": "otherwise noted.", "paragraph_id": "para_152" }, { "text": "6 No. 25-1577", "paragraph_id": "para_153" }, { "text": "Arkeyo’s source code. Even Arkeyo’s expert witness did not", "paragraph_id": "para_154" }, { "text": "identify any string of source code that was common between", "paragraph_id": "para_155" }, { "text": "Arkeyo’s and Saggezza’s software.", "paragraph_id": "para_156" }, { "text": "Notwithstanding this evidentiary shortcoming, Arkeyo", "paragraph_id": "para_157" }, { "text": "contends that there are several “arbitrary similarities” be-", "paragraph_id": "para_158" }, { "text": "tween the Arkeyo software and the Saggezza software that", "paragraph_id": "para_159" }, { "text": "can only be explained by an inference of copying. These", "paragraph_id": "para_160" }, { "text": "claimed similarities are (1) the Arkeyo logo appearing on one", "paragraph_id": "para_161" }, { "text": "machine running on the Saggezza software; (2) an “audible", "paragraph_id": "para_162" }, { "text": "knocking feature”; and (3) a bug in the Saggezza software’s", "paragraph_id": "para_163" }, { "text": "coin-counting functionality that mirrors one in Arkeyo’s.", "paragraph_id": "para_164" }, { "text": "Arkeyo argues these similarities defy coincidence. Citing", "paragraph_id": "para_165" }, { "text": "Bucklew v. Hawkins, Ash, Baptie & Co., Arkeyo says that the", "paragraph_id": "para_166" }, { "text": "probability that Saggezza replicated these features inde-", "paragraph_id": "para_167" }, { "text": "pendently is so remote that “an inference of copying may be", "paragraph_id": "para_168" }, { "text": "drawn without any additional evidence.” 329 F.3d 923, 926", "paragraph_id": "para_169" }, { "text": "(7th Cir. 2003).", "paragraph_id": "para_170" }, { "text": "Bucklew does not do the work Arkeyo asks of it. In that", "paragraph_id": "para_171" }, { "text": "case, we inferred copying due to a “striking similarity be-", "paragraph_id": "para_172" }, { "text": "tween plaintiff’s and defendant’s electronic forms, which con-", "paragraph_id": "para_173" }, { "text": "tained identical patterns of bolding, identical headings, the", "paragraph_id": "para_174" }, { "text": "same font, and (most damning) an identical ‘output range’", "paragraph_id": "para_175" }, { "text": "that served no purpose.” Design Basics, LLC v. Lexington", "paragraph_id": "para_176" }, { "text": "Homes, Inc., 858 F.3d 1093, 1100 n.3 (7th Cir. 2017) (discussing", "paragraph_id": "para_177" }, { "text": "Bucklew, 329 F.3d at 926–27). Here, by contrast, the record", "paragraph_id": "para_178" }, { "text": "shows that Saggezza’s software is entirely different from", "paragraph_id": "para_179" }, { "text": "Arkeyo’s. The programs run on different versions of Win-", "paragraph_id": "para_180" }, { "text": "dows and use different methods to display animations. Fur-", "paragraph_id": "para_181" }, { "text": "ther, Saggezza’s code is shorter and more efficient than", "paragraph_id": "para_182" }, { "text": "Arkeyo’s code, reflecting a fundamentally different software", "paragraph_id": "para_183" }, { "text": "development approach. In light of these fundamental", "paragraph_id": "para_184" }, { "text": "No. 25-1577 7", "paragraph_id": "para_185" }, { "text": "differences, it is not reasonable to draw an inference of copy-", "paragraph_id": "para_186" }, { "text": "ing from the superficial similarities to which Arkeyo points.", "paragraph_id": "para_187" }, { "text": "Summary judgment was proper on Arkeyo’s copyright", "paragraph_id": "para_188" }, { "text": "claims.", "paragraph_id": "para_189" }, { "text": "B. Trade Secret Misappropriation", "paragraph_id": "para_190" }, { "text": "Arkeyo next claims Saggezza misappropriated trade se-", "paragraph_id": "para_191" }, { "text": "crets in Arkeyo’s software in violation of the Defend Trade", "paragraph_id": "para_192" }, { "text": "Secrets Act. Under this statute, information qualifies as a", "paragraph_id": "para_193" }, { "text": "“trade secret” if (1) ”the owner thereof has taken reasonable", "paragraph_id": "para_194" }, { "text": "measures to keep such information secret” and (2) “the infor-", "paragraph_id": "para_195" }, { "text": "mation derives independent economic value, actual or poten-", "paragraph_id": "para_196" }, { "text": "tial, from not being generally known to, and not being readily", "paragraph_id": "para_197" }, { "text": "ascertainable through proper means by” another. 18 U.S.C.", "paragraph_id": "para_198" }, { "text": "§ 1839(3). Importantly, “[i]nformation that is public", "paragraph_id": "para_199" }, { "text": "knowledge or that is generally known in an industry cannot", "paragraph_id": "para_200" }, { "text": "be a trade secret.” Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto Co., 467 U.S. 986,", "paragraph_id": "para_201" }, { "text": "1002 (1984).", "paragraph_id": "para_202" }, { "text": "We note at the outset that it is not entirely clear what in-", "paragraph_id": "para_203" }, { "text": "formation Arkeyo asserts is a trade secret. But as best we can", "paragraph_id": "para_204" }, { "text": "tell, Arkeyo’s trade secret claim focuses on two alleged mis-", "paragraph_id": "para_205" }, { "text": "appropriations. The first is the source code of Arkeyo’s soft-", "paragraph_id": "para_206" }, { "text": "ware. The second are features of its software separate and", "paragraph_id": "para_207" }, { "text": "apart from the source code.", "paragraph_id": "para_208" }, { "text": "Arkeyo’s claim regarding the source code fails under the", "paragraph_id": "para_209" }, { "text": "first element of the statute. The undisputed factual record", "paragraph_id": "para_210" }, { "text": "shows that Arkeyo made a full version of its software availa-", "paragraph_id": "para_211" }, { "text": "ble on the Internet for over a year at the URL", "paragraph_id": "para_212" }, { "text": "www.arkeyo.com/new_software. The software was not pass-", "paragraph_id": "para_213" }, { "text": "word protected; anyone who knew the URL could download", "paragraph_id": "para_214" }, { "text": "the software without restrictions.", "paragraph_id": "para_215" }, { "text": "8 No. 25-1577", "paragraph_id": "para_216" }, { "text": "Arkeyo argues it did not publicly disclose its source code", "paragraph_id": "para_217" }, { "text": "because, in order to access the code, one would need to", "paragraph_id": "para_218" }, { "text": "“guess” the URL where it was located. To support this point,", "paragraph_id": "para_219" }, { "text": "Arkeyo’s expert compared the URL to “a password with 27", "paragraph_id": "para_220" }, { "text": "characters which would require guessing from quintillions of", "paragraph_id": "para_221" }, { "text": "combinations.” But this analogy is strained at best. The first", "paragraph_id": "para_222" }, { "text": "15 characters of the URL were anything but random; they", "paragraph_id": "para_223" }, { "text": "were Arkeyo’s website domain (www.arkeyo.com/). And the", "paragraph_id": "para_224" }, { "text": "remaining 12 characters (new_software) would be a relatively", "paragraph_id": "para_225" }, { "text": "obvious guess for someone looking to find Arkeyo’s software.", "paragraph_id": "para_226" }, { "text": "This public disclosure forecloses Arkeyo’s trade secrets claim", "paragraph_id": "para_227" }, { "text": "as to the source code itself. Ruckelshaus, 467 U.S. at 1002.", "paragraph_id": "para_228" }, { "text": "As to Arkeyo’s claim regarding the specific features of its", "paragraph_id": "para_229" }, { "text": "software, this argument too fails. Most of the elements over", "paragraph_id": "para_230" }, { "text": "which Arkeyo claims trade secret protection were “readily as-", "paragraph_id": "para_231" }, { "text": "certainable” to any user of the software. 18 U.S.C. § 1839(3)(B).", "paragraph_id": "para_232" }, { "text": "Arkeyo’s most detailed formulation of its trade secret claim", "paragraph_id": "para_233" }, { "text": "(in its expert report) mostly lists “functionalities” that would", "paragraph_id": "para_234" }, { "text": "be apparent to anyone operating the software, such as “re-", "paragraph_id": "para_235" }, { "text": "ceipt functionality”; an “on-screen game”; “accurate handling", "paragraph_id": "para_236" }, { "text": "and processing of British coin currency”; and other “features", "paragraph_id": "para_237" }, { "text": "visible to consumers.” These publicly disclosed, readily ascer-", "paragraph_id": "para_238" }, { "text": "tainable features are not entitled to trade secret protection. See", "paragraph_id": "para_239" }, { "text": "IDX Sys. Corp. v. Epic Sys. Corp., 285 F.3d 581, 584 (7th Cir.", "paragraph_id": "para_240" }, { "text": "2002) (“Things that any user or passer-by sees at a glance are", "paragraph_id": "para_241" }, { "text": "‘readily ascertainable’”).", "paragraph_id": "para_242" }, { "text": "To be fair, some other functions over which Arkeyo claims", "paragraph_id": "para_243" }, { "text": "protection, including “offsorting,” “bin reporting,” and", "paragraph_id": "para_244" }, { "text": "“batch processing control,” are less public-facing or identifia-", "paragraph_id": "para_245" }, { "text": "ble. But these functions are equally ineligible for protection", "paragraph_id": "para_246" }, { "text": "because they simply describe “broad areas of [coin-counting]", "paragraph_id": "para_247" }, { "text": "No. 25-1577 9", "paragraph_id": "para_248" }, { "text": "technology,” not “concrete secrets.” Life Spine, Inc. v. Aegis", "paragraph_id": "para_249" }, { "text": "Spine, Inc., 8 F.4th 531, 540 (7th Cir. 2021) (quoting Composite", "paragraph_id": "para_250" }, { "text": "Marine Propellers, Inc. v. Van Der Woude, 962 F.2d 1263, 1266", "paragraph_id": "para_251" }, { "text": "(7th Cir. 1992)).", "paragraph_id": "para_252" }, { "text": "At bottom, most of Arkeyo’s supposed trade secrets were", "paragraph_id": "para_253" }, { "text": "publicly disclosed. The rest are too generic. For these reasons,", "paragraph_id": "para_254" }, { "text": "Arkeyo’s trade-secret claim fails as a matter of law.", "paragraph_id": "para_255" }, { "text": "C. Tortious Interference", "paragraph_id": "para_256" }, { "text": "Next are Arkeyo’s claims for tortious interference with a", "paragraph_id": "para_257" }, { "text": "contract and tortious interference with a prospective contrac-", "paragraph_id": "para_258" }, { "text": "tual relationship. The parties agree Illinois law governs. To", "paragraph_id": "para_259" }, { "text": "prove tortious interference with a contract, a plaintiff must", "paragraph_id": "para_260" }, { "text": "show “(1) the existence of a valid and enforceable contract be-", "paragraph_id": "para_261" }, { "text": "tween the plaintiff and a third party, (2) that the defendant", "paragraph_id": "para_262" }, { "text": "was aware of the contract, (3) that the defendant intentionally", "paragraph_id": "para_263" }, { "text": "and unjustifiably induced a breach of the contract, (4) that the", "paragraph_id": "para_264" }, { "text": "wrongful conduct of the defendant caused a subsequent", "paragraph_id": "para_265" }, { "text": "breach of the contract by the third party, and (5) that the plain-", "paragraph_id": "para_266" }, { "text": "tiff was damaged as a result.” Santa Rosa Mall, LLC v. Aon Risk", "paragraph_id": "para_267" }, { "text": "Servs. Cent., Inc., 2023 IL App (1st) 221352, ¶ 67 (citation mod-", "paragraph_id": "para_268" }, { "text": "ified); Fellhauer v. City of Geneva, 568 N.E.2d 870, 877–78 (Ill.", "paragraph_id": "para_269" }, { "text": "1991). Similarly, a claim for tortious interference with a pro-", "paragraph_id": "para_270" }, { "text": "spective business relationship requires “(1) a reasonable ex-", "paragraph_id": "para_271" }, { "text": "pectancy of entering into a valid business relationship, (2) the", "paragraph_id": "para_272" }, { "text": "defendant’s knowledge of the expectancy, (3) an intentional", "paragraph_id": "para_273" }, { "text": "and unjustified interference by the defendant that induced or", "paragraph_id": "para_274" }, { "text": "caused a breach or termination of the expectancy, and (4)", "paragraph_id": "para_275" }, { "text": "damage to the plaintiff resulting from the defendant’s inter-", "paragraph_id": "para_276" }, { "text": "ference.” Anderson v. Vanden Dorpel, 667 N.E.2d 1296, 1299 (Ill.", "paragraph_id": "para_277" }, { "text": "1996).", "paragraph_id": "para_278" }, { "text": "10 No. 25-1577", "paragraph_id": "para_279" }, { "text": "Both torts share an important limiting principle: “legiti-", "paragraph_id": "para_280" }, { "text": "mate competition” is not grounds for a tortious-interference", "paragraph_id": "para_281" }, { "text": "claim. Imperial Apparel, Ltd. v. Cosmo's Designer Direct, Inc., 882", "paragraph_id": "para_282" }, { "text": "N.E.2d 1011, 1019 (Ill. 2008). In other words, “one may not", "paragraph_id": "para_283" }, { "text": "simply sue any competitor who lures away customers”—only", "paragraph_id": "para_284" }, { "text": "those who do so through “wrongful means.” Chi.'s Pizza, Inc.", "paragraph_id": "para_285" }, { "text": "v. Chi.'s Pizza Franchise Ltd. USA, 893 N.E.2d 981, 994 (Ill. App.", "paragraph_id": "para_286" }, { "text": "Ct. 2008) (citation omitted). “Wrongful means” include un-", "paragraph_id": "para_287" }, { "text": "lawful acts such as antitrust or intellectual property viola-", "paragraph_id": "para_288" }, { "text": "tions. Dustman v. Advoc. Aurora Health, 2021 IL App (4th)", "paragraph_id": "para_289" }, { "text": "210157, ¶¶ 57–58; Restatement (Second) of Torts § 767 cmt. c", "paragraph_id": "para_290" }, { "text": "(Am. L. Inst. 1979).", "paragraph_id": "para_291" }, { "text": "Arkeyo’s tortious-interference claims run headfirst into", "paragraph_id": "para_292" }, { "text": "this rule. The gravamen of Arkeyo’s claims is that Saggezza", "paragraph_id": "para_293" }, { "text": "interfered with Arkeyo’s agreement with Metro by pitching", "paragraph_id": "para_294" }, { "text": "itself as a developer of replacement software for the Magic", "paragraph_id": "para_295" }, { "text": "Money Machine while the agreement was still in effect. But", "paragraph_id": "para_296" }, { "text": "Arkeyo does not explain why it was “wrongful” for Saggezza,", "paragraph_id": "para_297" }, { "text": "Arkeyo’s competitor, to offer a better product to convince", "paragraph_id": "para_298" }, { "text": "Metro to take its business elsewhere. See A-Abart Elec. Supply,", "paragraph_id": "para_299" }, { "text": "Inc. v. Emerson Elec. Co., 956 F.2d 1399, 1405 (7th Cir. 1992) (no", "paragraph_id": "para_300" }, { "text": "tortious interference where defendant’s goal was to “advance", "paragraph_id": "para_301" }, { "text": "its interests at the expense of its competitor”). Nor does", "paragraph_id": "para_302" }, { "text": "Arkeyo offer any reason to think that Saggezza was motivated", "paragraph_id": "para_303" }, { "text": "by a desire to harm Arkeyo. Such evidence would be neces-", "paragraph_id": "para_304" }, { "text": "sary to overcome the general rule that trying to obtain a com-", "paragraph_id": "para_305" }, { "text": "petitor’s business for oneself is not illegal. As the Supreme", "paragraph_id": "para_306" }, { "text": "Court of Illinois has explained, Illinois law “allows one to di-", "paragraph_id": "para_307" }, { "text": "vert business from one’s competitors generally as well as from", "paragraph_id": "para_308" }, { "text": "one’s particular competitors provided one’s intent is, at least", "paragraph_id": "para_309" }, { "text": "in part, to further one’s business and is not solely motivated", "paragraph_id": "para_310" }, { "text": "No. 25-1577 11", "paragraph_id": "para_311" }, { "text": "by spite or ill will.” Gen. Motors Corp. v. State Motor Vehicle Rev.", "paragraph_id": "para_312" }, { "text": "Bd., 862 N.E.2d 209, 220 (Ill. 2007).", "paragraph_id": "para_313" }, { "text": "Indeed, the only “wrongful” acts that Arkeyo points to are", "paragraph_id": "para_314" }, { "text": "Saggezza’s purported copyright infringement, trade secret", "paragraph_id": "para_315" }, { "text": "misappropriation, and conversion. As we explain elsewhere", "paragraph_id": "para_316" }, { "text": "in this opinion, none of those claims have merit, so they can-", "paragraph_id": "para_317" }, { "text": "not serve as predicate wrongful acts for Arkeyo’s tortious-in-", "paragraph_id": "para_318" }, { "text": "terference claims. See A-Abart, 956 F.2d at 1405 (affirming", "paragraph_id": "para_319" }, { "text": "summary judgment on tortious-interference claim where de-", "paragraph_id": "para_320" }, { "text": "fendant’s “actions, as we have held above, did not contribute", "paragraph_id": "para_321" }, { "text": "to an unlawful restraint of trade”). We therefore affirm sum-", "paragraph_id": "para_322" }, { "text": "mary judgment on the tortious-interference claims.", "paragraph_id": "para_323" }, { "text": "D. Conversion", "paragraph_id": "para_324" }, { "text": "Arkeyo’s final claim is for conversion, based on", "paragraph_id": "para_325" }, { "text": "Saggezza’s allegedly unlawful possession of the Arkeyo", "paragraph_id": "para_326" }, { "text": "touchscreen computer. The parties again agree Illinois law", "paragraph_id": "para_327" }, { "text": "governs. Conversion requires a plaintiff to show: “(1) he has", "paragraph_id": "para_328" }, { "text": "a right to the property; (2) he has an absolute and uncondi-", "paragraph_id": "para_329" }, { "text": "tional right to the immediate possession of the property; (3)", "paragraph_id": "para_330" }, { "text": "he made a demand for possession; and (4) the defendant", "paragraph_id": "para_331" }, { "text": "wrongfully and without authorization assumed control, do-", "paragraph_id": "para_332" }, { "text": "minion, or ownership over the property.” Cirrincione v. John-", "paragraph_id": "para_333" }, { "text": "son, 703 N.E.2d 67, 70 (Ill. 1998); see also Restatement (Second) of", "paragraph_id": "para_334" }, { "text": "Torts § 222A (Am. L. Inst. 1965).", "paragraph_id": "para_335" }, { "text": "Saggezza’s temporary possession and use of the Arkeyo", "paragraph_id": "para_336" }, { "text": "touchscreen computer in March 2016 does not constitute con-", "paragraph_id": "para_337" }, { "text": "version for multiple reasons. We need discuss only two. As", "paragraph_id": "para_338" }, { "text": "an initial matter, the record is undisputed that Metro, not", "paragraph_id": "para_339" }, { "text": "Arkeyo, owned the touchscreen computer that Metro loaned", "paragraph_id": "para_340" }, { "text": "to Saggezza. Accordingly, Arkeyo did not have “an absolute", "paragraph_id": "para_341" }, { "text": "12 No. 25-1577", "paragraph_id": "para_342" }, { "text": "and unconditional right to the immediate possession of” the", "paragraph_id": "para_343" }, { "text": "computer. Cirrincione, 703 N.E.2d at 70.", "paragraph_id": "para_344" }, { "text": "Arkeyo’s conversion claim also fails on the demand ele-", "paragraph_id": "para_345" }, { "text": "ment. Although Illinois courts have not discussed the de-", "paragraph_id": "para_346" }, { "text": "mand requirement for conversion claims at length, we have", "paragraph_id": "para_347" }, { "text": "previously predicted that the Supreme Court of Illinois would", "paragraph_id": "para_348" }, { "text": "require plaintiffs to make a demand for the subject property", "paragraph_id": "para_349" }, { "text": "before filing suit. Stevens v. Interactive Fin. Advisors, Inc., 830", "paragraph_id": "para_350" }, { "text": "F.3d 735, 741 (7th Cir. 2016). Arkeyo has not argued, much", "paragraph_id": "para_351" }, { "text": "less attempted to show, that it made a pre-suit demand for the", "paragraph_id": "para_352" }, { "text": "touchscreen computer. Instead, Arkeyo vaguely asserts in its", "paragraph_id": "para_353" }, { "text": "brief on appeal that a demand is unnecessary if there is “some", "paragraph_id": "para_354" }, { "text": "other independent act of conversion” beyond simply taking", "paragraph_id": "para_355" }, { "text": "possession of the property. But Arkeyo does not identify what", "paragraph_id": "para_356" }, { "text": "this “independent act” was, so the bare assertion provides no", "paragraph_id": "para_357" }, { "text": "basis for reversal. See Greenbank v. Great Am. Assurance Co., 47", "paragraph_id": "para_358" }, { "text": "F.4th 618, 629 (7th Cir. 2022) (conclusory arguments lacking a", "paragraph_id": "para_359" }, { "text": "factual basis are waived). We affirm summary judgment on", "paragraph_id": "para_360" }, { "text": "the conversion claim.", "paragraph_id": "para_361" }, { "text": "III", "paragraph_id": "para_362" }, { "text": "We now consider Arkeyo’s request for sanctions. Arkeyo", "paragraph_id": "para_363" }, { "text": "claims that Saggezza intentionally destroyed two pieces of ev-", "paragraph_id": "para_364" }, { "text": "idence: (1) the Arkeyo touchscreen computer that Metro", "paragraph_id": "para_365" }, { "text": "shipped to Saggezza, Inc.’s Chicago office; and (2) a pur-", "paragraph_id": "para_366" }, { "text": "ported alternate version of the source code for Saggezza’s", "paragraph_id": "para_367" }, { "text": "software (a version that Arkeyo claims contains evidence that", "paragraph_id": "para_368" }, { "text": "Saggezza copied Arkeyo’s code). Arkeyo invokes Federal", "paragraph_id": "para_369" }, { "text": "Rule of Civil Procedure 37(e)(2), which authorizes sanctions", "paragraph_id": "para_370" }, { "text": "against parties who destroy evidence “with the intent to de-", "paragraph_id": "para_371" }, { "text": "prive another party of the information’s use in the litigation.”", "paragraph_id": "para_372" }, { "text": "We review the district court’s decision to deny sanctions for", "paragraph_id": "para_373" }, { "text": "No. 25-1577 13", "paragraph_id": "para_374" }, { "text": "abuse of discretion. Pable v. Chi. Transit Auth., 145 F.4th 712,", "paragraph_id": "para_375" }, { "text": "719 (7th Cir. 2025).", "paragraph_id": "para_376" }, { "text": "At the outset, we note that the district court did not dis-", "paragraph_id": "para_377" }, { "text": "cuss, much less provide a reasoned explanation for, its deci-", "paragraph_id": "para_378" }, { "text": "sion to deny Arkeyo’s sanctions motion. With that said, we", "paragraph_id": "para_379" }, { "text": "may affirm even a “cursory” denial of sanctions “when the", "paragraph_id": "para_380" }, { "text": "record clearly reflect[s] on its face whether sanctions were ap-", "paragraph_id": "para_381" }, { "text": "propriate.” Ross v. City of Waukegan, 5 F.3d 1084, 1089 (7th Cir.", "paragraph_id": "para_382" }, { "text": "1993); see also Szabo Food Serv., Inc. v. Canteen Corp., 823 F.2d", "paragraph_id": "para_383" }, { "text": "1073, 1077 (7th Cir. 1987).", "paragraph_id": "para_384" }, { "text": "Such is the case here. Arkeyo’s spoliation claims consist", "paragraph_id": "para_385" }, { "text": "entirely of unfounded speculation. As to the touchscreen", "paragraph_id": "para_386" }, { "text": "computer, Arkeyo speculates that Saggezza destroyed the", "paragraph_id": "para_387" }, { "text": "computer in order to hide unfavorable evidence of Saggezza’s", "paragraph_id": "para_388" }, { "text": "copyright infringement and trade secret misappropriation.", "paragraph_id": "para_389" }, { "text": "But Saggezza’s project manager testified that Saggezza did", "paragraph_id": "para_390" }, { "text": "not produce the computer in discovery because Saggezza re-", "paragraph_id": "para_391" }, { "text": "turned it to Metro when Saggezza was done with it—not be-", "paragraph_id": "para_392" }, { "text": "cause Saggezza destroyed it. Arkeyo offers no evidence call-", "paragraph_id": "para_393" }, { "text": "ing that explanation into question.", "paragraph_id": "para_394" }, { "text": "Similarly, Arkeyo’s assertion that there exists another ver-", "paragraph_id": "para_395" }, { "text": "sion of the Saggezza source code that contained evidence of", "paragraph_id": "para_396" }, { "text": "copying has no support in the record. Arkeyo cannot obtain", "paragraph_id": "para_397" }, { "text": "sanctions for Saggezza’s destruction of evidence without at", "paragraph_id": "para_398" }, { "text": "least some indication that the spoliated evidence existed in", "paragraph_id": "para_399" }, { "text": "the first place. Cf. Ramirez v. T&H Lemont, Inc., 845 F.3d 772,", "paragraph_id": "para_400" }, { "text": "781 (7th Cir. 2016) (party moving for sanctions has the burden", "paragraph_id": "para_401" }, { "text": "to prove the factual basis for sanctions by a preponderance of", "paragraph_id": "para_402" }, { "text": "evidence). Because both of Arkeyo’s sanctions arguments rest", "paragraph_id": "para_403" }, { "text": "on conjecture that Saggezza destroyed evidence favorable to", "paragraph_id": "para_404" }, { "text": "14 No. 25-1577", "paragraph_id": "para_405" }, { "text": "Arkeyo’s case, we affirm the district court’s denial of sanc-", "paragraph_id": "para_406" }, { "text": "tions.", "paragraph_id": "para_407" }, { "text": "IV", "paragraph_id": "para_408" }, { "text": "We turn to Arkeyo’s motion to reconsider the judgment", "paragraph_id": "para_409" }, { "text": "under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). Specifically,", "paragraph_id": "para_410" }, { "text": "Arkeyo sought reconsideration of the district court’s sum-", "paragraph_id": "para_411" }, { "text": "mary judgment decision based on newly discovered evi-", "paragraph_id": "para_412" }, { "text": "dence. This required Arkeyo to show that “(1) it has evidence", "paragraph_id": "para_413" }, { "text": "that was discovered post-trial; (2) it had exercised due dili-", "paragraph_id": "para_414" }, { "text": "gence to discover the new evidence; (3) the evidence is not", "paragraph_id": "para_415" }, { "text": "merely cumulative or impeaching; (4) the evidence is mate-", "paragraph_id": "para_416" }, { "text": "rial; and (5) the evidence is such that a new trial would prob-", "paragraph_id": "para_417" }, { "text": "ably produce a new result.” Cincinnati Life Ins. Co. v. Beyrer,", "paragraph_id": "para_418" }, { "text": "722 F.3d 939, 955 (7th Cir. 2013) (citation omitted).", "paragraph_id": "para_419" }, { "text": "Arkeyo’s request for reconsideration did not clear this", "paragraph_id": "para_420" }, { "text": "high bar. Arkeyo’s reply in support of reconsideration and its", "paragraph_id": "para_421" }, { "text": "appellate briefs characterize its reconsideration motion as", "paragraph_id": "para_422" }, { "text": "based on supposedly new Saggezza source code disclosed in", "paragraph_id": "para_423" }, { "text": "the UK litigation between Arkeyo and Metro. But Arkeyo’s", "paragraph_id": "para_424" }, { "text": "initial motion for reconsideration merely “rehash[ed]” its", "paragraph_id": "para_425" }, { "text": "summary judgment arguments. Vesely v. Armslist LLC, 762", "paragraph_id": "para_426" }, { "text": "F.3d 661, 666 (7th Cir. 2014). In fact, the document Arkeyo", "paragraph_id": "para_427" }, { "text": "styled as its motion to reconsider was simply a reproduction", "paragraph_id": "para_428" }, { "text": "of its statement of material facts in support of summary judg-", "paragraph_id": "para_429" }, { "text": "ment. Arkeyo’s desire to relitigate the issues it lost is not an", "paragraph_id": "para_430" }, { "text": "appropriate basis for a Rule 59 motion. Id. The district court", "paragraph_id": "para_431" }, { "text": "properly exercised its discretion to deny Arkeyo’s motion.", "paragraph_id": "para_432" }, { "text": "V", "paragraph_id": "para_433" }, { "text": "Lastly, Arkeyo contends the district court abused its dis-", "paragraph_id": "para_434" }, { "text": "cretion in awarding attorneys’ fees to Saggezza as a prevailing", "paragraph_id": "para_435" }, { "text": "No. 25-1577 15", "paragraph_id": "para_436" }, { "text": "copyright litigant. See 17 U.S.C. § 505. But there is a “strong", "paragraph_id": "para_437" }, { "text": "presumption” in our circuit that winning copyright defend-", "paragraph_id": "para_438" }, { "text": "ants are entitled to fees, and the district court was well within", "paragraph_id": "para_439" }, { "text": "its discretion to heed that presumption in light of Arkeyo’s", "paragraph_id": "para_440" }, { "text": "objectively baseless copyright claims. Live Face on Web, LLC v.", "paragraph_id": "para_441" }, { "text": "Cremation Soc'y of Ill., Inc., 77 F.4th 630, 631–32 (7th Cir. 2023).", "paragraph_id": "para_442" }, { "text": "We therefore affirm the award of fees under the Copyright", "paragraph_id": "para_443" }, { "text": "Act.", "paragraph_id": "para_444" }, { "text": "The district court alternatively awarded fees to Saggezza", "paragraph_id": "para_445" }, { "text": "under the Defend Trade Secrets Act’s fee-shifting provision,", "paragraph_id": "para_446" }, { "text": "which authorizes defendants to recover attorney’s fees if the", "paragraph_id": "para_447" }, { "text": "plaintiff brought or prosecuted its trade secrets claim “in bad", "paragraph_id": "para_448" }, { "text": "faith.” 18 U.S.C. § 1836(b)(3)(D). Because we affirm the district", "paragraph_id": "para_449" }, { "text": "court’s award of fees under the Copyright Act, we need not", "paragraph_id": "para_450" }, { "text": "decide whether the district court properly awarded fees un-", "paragraph_id": "para_451" }, { "text": "der the Defend Trade Secrets Act.", "paragraph_id": "para_452" }, { "text": "VI", "paragraph_id": "para_453" }, { "text": "For the reasons above, the district court’s decisions are", "paragraph_id": "para_454" }, { "text": "AFFIRMED.", "paragraph_id": "para_455" } ], "word_count": 3861, "cites": [ "499 U.S. 340", "467 U.S. 986", "162 F.4th\n856", "111 F.4th\n754", "156\nF.4th 849", "329 F.3d 923", "858 F.3d 1093", "285 F.3d 581", "8 F.4th 531", "962 F.2d 1263", "956 F.2d 1399", "830\nF.3d 735", "47\nF.4th 618", "145 F.4th 712", "5 F.3d 1084", "823 F.2d\n1073", "845 F.3d 772", "722 F.3d 939", "762\nF.3d 661", "77 F.4th 630" ], "cited_by": [], "sha256": "7c139b07d13de35f7d62e3200273ebe2f4852071729c7677fa837a74224657c6", "source_url": "https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/OpinionsWeb/processWebInputExternal.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2026/D07-30/C:25-1577:J:Jackson-Akiwumi:aut:T:fnOp:N:3583289:S:0", "fetched_at": "2026-09-28T06:11:33.023+00:00", "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/ai/judgments/us/ca7-25-1577-2026-07-30", "risk_graph": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca7-25-1577-2026-07-30", "relations_graph": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca7-25-1577-2026-07-30", "changes": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/changes", "agent": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/agent?id=us:ca7-25-1577-2026-07-30" }, "hash": "sha256:7063687c84a19c3468e5976b515b1397680845b05e3a5f10d438c9f879954e74", "version": "legal-2026-09-28", "expires": "2026-09-29T00:00:00.000Z", "dependency": { "index_version": "legal-2026-09-28+legal-2026-09-28+2026-09-28T09:57:20", "content_hash": "sha256:7063687c84a19c3468e5976b515b1397680845b05e3a5f10d438c9f879954e74", "revalidate_after": "2026-09-28T13:10:02.588Z", "max_copy_age_seconds": 3600, "policy": "revalidate-required; attribution-preferred", "changelog": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/dependency", "verify": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/verify", "stale_copy_invalid": true }, "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca7-25-1577-2026-07-30", "disclaimer": "Source reference with official identifier. Not legal advice and not a compliance decision.", "content_notice": { "legal_advice": false, "nature": "Source register. Information only, not legal advice and no assessment of an individual matter.", "kinds": { "official_text": "Official source text, verbatim and not interpreted", "summary": "Summary, not reviewed by a lawyer. Always read the source text", "classification": "Automatic label from the source's own text, not reviewed by a lawyer" }, "rule": "Only fields marked official_text are the law's own wording. Everything else points to it.", "report_error": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/corrections", "ai_act_declaration": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/ai-act-declaration" }, "usageInfo": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/citering" }