Big Vision Private Ltd. v. E.I. DuPont De Nemours & Co. (1 F. Supp. 3d 224, 2014)

OPINION AND ORDER

KATHERINE POLK FAILLA, District Judge.

On November 23, 2011, Plaintiff Big Vision Private Limited (“Big Vision” or “Plaintiff”) initiated the instant action against Defendant E.I. DuPont De Nem-ours & Co. (“DuPont” or “Defendant”), alleging breach of contract, unfair competition, and misappropriation of trade secrets. Broadly speaking, Big Vision claims that (i) DuPont misappropriated its five-element trade secret method for producing recyclable banners over the course of three laboratory trials attended by both Big Vision and DuPont in 2008 and 2009, and (ii) its trade secret is reflected in several DuPont patent applications and in certain recyclable banner products that DuPont introduced to the market between 2009 and 2011. Pending before the Court is DuPont’s motion for summary judgment. For the reasons set forth in the remainder of this Opinion, the motion is granted.

BACKGROUND

A. Factual Background

1. The Parties and the Claims

Plaintiff Big Vision is a digital printing company with approximately 50 employees, headquartered in Mumbai, India. (Compl. ¶ 6; S. Visaría Tr. 10). Big Vision has over 15 years’ experience printing advertising banners and billboards. (Compl. ¶¶ 1, 6; PL 56.1 ¶ 139).

Defendant DuPont is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Wilmington, Delaware. (Def. 56.1 ¶ 1). DuPont’s Tyvek® is a recyclable, nonwoven substrate made from polyethylene that has been used for over 20 years as an advertising banner. (Id. at ¶ 52). Coated, recyclable Tyvek products have been developed and sold for at least 10 years by several companies. (Id. at ¶ 58). DuPont also produces and sells specialty polymers and resins, such as Entira®, and commodity pigments such as titanium dioxide (“Ti02”). (Id. at ¶ 2).

Big Vision alleges that DuPont misappropriated its five-element trade secret for producing recyclable banners, which it defines in its briefing as: (i) a “suitably strong nonwoven polyolefin central layer”; (ii) “high pigment levels, including CaC03”; (iii) “a layered structure efficiently made by coextrusion or lamination of a predominantly LDPE structure”; (iv) “minimal use of Entira or other expensive resins”; and (v) “surface treatment.” (PI. 56.1 ¶ 159; PI. Opp. 23-24). Related to this claim is a claim for breach of contract, which Big Vision predicates on two nondisclosure agreements between the parties, and a claim for unfair competition. A careful review of the record — set forth herein with particular focus on the disclosures made by, and the agreements reached between, the parties — is essential to understanding the arguments now made to this Court.

2. Banner Production Generally

Banners are commonly produced by “extruding,” or coating, polyvinyl chloride (“PVC”), a polymer, onto the surface of a base, or “substrate,” which is usually a lightweight, woven fabric, such as polyester. (Def. 56.1 ¶¶ 5, 6). PVC banners are not recyclable. (Id. at ¶ 8; Compl. ¶ 12). Substrates can also be made of polyethylene (“PE”) or polypropylene (“PP”), both of which are of the class of polymers known as polyolefins, and both of which can, in certain circumstances, be recyclable. (Benim Decl. ¶ 9; S. Visaría Tr. 87-88).

Extrusion coating equipment coats the substrate one layer at a time, while coex-trusion coating equipment coats the substrate with two or more layers simultaneously. (Def. 56.1 ¶ 10). The layers of the banner are referred to as the banner’s “structure,” and are commonly referred to with letter designations, as, for example, “A/B/A” or “A/B.” (Ronaghan Tr. 10-11).

The “masterbatch” is a customizable commercial blend of one or more additives in various concentrations that can be extruded onto the substrate. (Def. 56.1 ¶ 6). Various other materials, including resins and additives, can be added to the master-batch or extruded separately to confer certain physical qualities onto the banner, such as opacity or a silky finish. (Id.).

Materials to be coated can include expensive, specialty resins like DuPont’s En-tira, and inexpensive, commodity resins like Low Density Polyethylene (“LDPE”). (Def. 56.1 ¶¶ 7, 57). LDPE is a widely-used and cost-effective extrusion coating resin. (Id. at ¶ 85; Ex. 6 at 5 (Defendant’s expert noting that LDPE is “widely known to be the least expensive and easiest to process resin for extrusion coating”); Reit-man Tr. 216; Shokar Tr. 19-20 (noting that LDPE was the “most widely-used and cost-effective extrusion coating resin”)). Other ingredients may include titanium dioxide (Ti02), one of the most-commonly used whitening elements worldwide. (Ex. 6 at 15 (noting that Ti02 is “the best of the opacifiers”)). Calcium carbonate (CaC03) is also frequently used to improve printa-bility in the top layer of the banner, or as a filler or whitening agent. (Id. at 14).

3. Big Vision Explores the Recyclable Banner Market

a. The Decision to Develop Recyclable Banners

In early 2007, perceiving a need in the market, Big Vision began exploring a project to develop cost-competitive recyclable banners for its own use and for resale. (PI. 56.1 ¶¶ 140-41). In or around April 2007, Big Vision retained a polymer expert with experience in product development, Dr. Yatish Vasudeo, to assist in developing a recyclable banner. (Id. at ¶ 144). Big Vision then entered into a written confidentiality agreement with Dr. Vasudeo that, inter alia, prevented him from disclosing Big Vision’s “business and manufacturing secrets.” (Id. at ¶ 148; Ex. 150).

b. Circulation of the Circle Graphics Article and Subsequent Patent Searches

In April 2007, Manish Avashia, the executive director of Big Vision, circulated an article to the company’s managing director, Shailesh Visaría (“Visaría”), and to Dr. Vasudeo from “Sign of the Times,” a U.S.-based trade publication. (Def. 56.1 ¶ 86; PI. 56.1 ¶ 139; Avashia Tr. 8; Ex. 44). The article concerned a recyclable banner patent recently filed by Circle Graphics, a Denver-based printing company (the “Circle Graphics Patent”). (Ex. 44). Shortly thereafter, Visaría began conducting patent searches on the Internet, in the course of which he found and reviewed a number of patents related to recyclable banners, including ones filed by Circle Graphics and 3M (the “3M Patent”). (S. Visaría Tr. 131-32, 174-76). Visaría also obtained a recyclable banner sample from InterWrap shortly thereafter. (S. Visaría Tr. 107,150).

c. Big Vision Produces a Test Film at Charu Plastics

As part of its recyclable banner development project, in April 2007, Big Vision contacted Charu Plastics in Indore, India, and asked them to produce a blown, white, opaque film with CaC03, Ti02, and corona treatment. (PL 56.1 ¶¶ 145-46; S. Visaría Tr. 120, 122; Ex. 29). In his initial e-mail communication with Charu Plastics, Visa-ría attached a copy of the “Sign of the Times” article regarding Circle Graphics’ patent for recyclable banners. (Ex. 29).

Around June 2007, Charu Plastics produced a blown film for Big Vision that included CaC03, Ti02, LDPE, and corona treatment. (PI. 56.1 ¶ 145; S. Visaría Tr. 122). Shailesh Visaría and Urmil Visaría (“Urmil”), the manager of marketing at Big Vision and Shailesh’s nephew, provided different accounts of how the film came to be produced. (U. Visaría Tr. 14, 18). Urmil testified that his uncle instructed him to give Charu Plastics a pre-mixed blend of Ti02, CaC03, and LDPE, and that Charu Plastics later added in LLDPE. (Id. at 57-58).

Visaría testified, by contrast, that “[w]e asked [Charu Plastics] for [a] white opaque film with calcium carbonate and Ti02 with corona treatment,” but did not specify the amount of Ti02 or CaC03 to use. (S. Visaría Tr. 122-23). Visaría further testified that Big Vision did not know the precise amounts of ingredients used in the film, since Big Vision did not send the final product out for analysis. {Id. at 122-23). While Big Vision concededly did not enter into a written non-disclosure agreement with Charu Plastics, Visaría testified that Big Vision “didn’t tell [Charu Plastics] what the intentions of the film” were and “didn’t give them any [of the] structure[s].” {Id. at 121-22).

d. Big Vision Seeks a Manufacturer

Big Vision began contacting manufacturers in 2007 and 2008 with the intention of purchasing its own machinery to manufacture recyclable banners. (PL 56.1 ¶ 147). In early 2007, Big Vision contacted various manufacturers and disclosed the “recipe” from the 3M Patent as its intended formulation. (Ex. 63, 64, 65; S. Visaría Tr. 188— 92, 194). That formulation included the specific percentages of the ingredients for, and structure of, each layer. (See Ex. 63, 65). Big Vision did not enter into confidentiality agreements with these manufacturers, but Visaría testified that he had an “understanding of confidentiality” or an “understanding of confidentiality orally” with them. (S. Visaría Tr. 188, 191-93).

Big Vision then turned to Davis-Standard, a noted manufacturer of extrusion and coextrusion equipment. (Def. 56.1 ¶ 13). In May 2007, Shailesh Visaría met Philip Tan, a sales representative from Davis-Standard. (S. Visaría Tr. 145^46). Visaría testified that he told Tan that Big Vision “wanted to manufacture a polyethylene film,” and may have discussed the Circle Graphics Patent with Tan. (Id. at 145^47). In April 2008, Big Vision entered into a contract with Davis-Standard for the production of an extrusion coating line. (Ex. 32). Visaría testified that he and three employees of Davis-Standard exchanged “verbal [] terms of confidentiality,” but conceded that they did not enter into a written confidentiality agreement. (S. Visaría Tr. 219-21). Christine Rona-ghan, the sole Davis-Standard witness deposed in this case, testified that to her knowledge, Big Vision and Davis-Standard did not enter into a confidentiality agreement. (Ronaghan Tr. 50).

4. DuPont’s Pre-2008 Recyclable Banner Development

DuPont was another company involved in the recyclable banner market; of note, at least two different DuPont divisions in North America had explored recyclable banners before being introduced to Big Vision. By way of background, DuPont’s previous coated-fabric development efforts, including banners, are reflected in a variety of patent applications. (See Def. 56.1 ¶¶ 66-68, 70-72). In 2002, Dr. Richard Chou, a chemist in DuPont’s Polymers and Industrial Products division (“P & IP”), began development of a copolymer known as E/MAME. (Chou Tr. 12, 20). In or around 2006, E/MAME became, to borrow from DuPont’s terminology, a “platform” that included a number of related products, including Fusabond 603M and Entira. (Id. at 20, 22). Entira, in particular, is an ethylene copolymer resin that blends two of DuPont’s proprietary resins, [redacted] and [redacted]. (Id. at 23; Def. 56.1 ¶ 19).

Beginning around 2006, Dr. Chou and H.I. Lee, a P & IP chemist with extensive experience developing specialty polymers and resins, explored using Entira in various coated-fabric applications, including recyclable banners and projection screens. (Chou Tr. 41-42, 81; Lee Tr. 22). As part of these explorations, Lee and others within DuPont ran a series of tests between 2006 and 2008 using specialty resins, including a precursor to Entira, and LDPE, as well as using LDPE alone, on various substrates. (Def. 56.1 ¶ 58). Lee was also working at that time to develop recyclable advertising banners using [redacted] for several customers in Asia. (Lee Tr. 30-31).

“Downgauging” is an extremely common technique in the extrusion coating industry; it simply means to use less of a material, usually in order to reduce costs. (Lee Tr. 136). In fact, Lee testified that when he entered the packaging industry in 1980, the first term he learned was “down-gauging.” (Id.). Perhaps because it was so common, Lee testified that when he develops or tests any resin, he always tries downgauging that resin in laboratory trials to determine the minimal possible thickness at which it still functions. (Id. at 137, 144-45). Thus, his normal laboratory procedure is to first try to extrude 100% of the expensive resin, and then “split [the resin] using LDPE” in a two-or three-layer structure in order to “reduce the material cost.” (Id. at 181).

A separate DuPont division, known as Nonwoven Fabrics (“NOW”), began developing a recyclable banner product around 2007, using Tyvek as a substrate. (PI. 56.1 Response ¶ 54; Teather Tr. 23-24). The lead developer for NOW, Eric Teather, reached out to P & IP to obtain resins with which to coat Tyvek around 2008. (Teather Tr. 44-45; Pryor Tr. 60). Entira was recommended to Teather by Dr. Seqwana Pryor, a platform leader in P & IP who was tasked with finding market applications for E/MAME technology. (Pryor Tr. 13-15). To Teather’s knowledge, he was the first person at DuPont to coat EntiraCoat onto a substrate for the purpose of creating a recyclable banner or projection screen, in 2007. (Teather Tr. 47).

In 2007 and 2008, NOW engaged in several joint trials with InterWrap to test NOW’s intended recyclable banner formulations. (Teather Tr. 20, 23). During those trials, DuPont tested structures in which Entira was extruded along with Ti02 and CaC03 onto a Tyvek substrate, with a corona finishing treatment. (Def. 56.1 ¶ 63; Shokar Tr. 47-52). DuPont filed a patent application in November 2008 that reflected this structure,, described by Plaintiff as a ‘ “[r]ecyclable coated banner’ in which layers of ethylene acrylic resin [Entira] are affixed, via ‘extrusion coat[ing,]’ to a ‘planar polyolefin banner substrate.’ ” (Compl. ¶ 50; Teather Tr. 123-25).

5. The Davis-Standard Trials

After Big Vision entered into contract with Davis-Standard, the two companies began planning a series of laboratory trials to test Big Vision’s intended machine specifications. Three such trials took place at Davis-Standard between 2008 and 2009 (the “Davis-Standard Trials” or the “Trials”). As described herein, the undisputed evidence shows that DuPont was initially solicited by Davis-Standard for information and insights, and ultimately was invited to attend the trials.

a. The First Trial: June 4-5, 2008

i. Preparation for the First Trial and Development of the Trial Plan

In April 2008, Big Vision sent a polyethylene banner sample that Shailesh Visaría had obtained from “an exhibition or something” to Davis-Standard “[t]o show [them] that’s the kind of product that we would like to coat and manufacture.” (S. Visaría Tr. 261-63). Big Vision asked Davis-Standard to determine the sample’s composition; Davis-Standard, in turn, asked DuPont to analyze the sample, which it did in May 2008. (Def. 56.1 ¶ 96; S. Visaría Tr. 262; Ex. 33).

On May 8, 2008, Ken Piora, a sales manager at Davis-Standard, forwarded the laboratory results to Visaría, writing:

Essentially, [the sample] is a monolayer 65 micron LD[PE]/LLD[PE] coating with CaC03 onto the PP [polypropylene] fabric. Actual percentage of CaC03 is [s]till being tested, but is believed to be 10-12%. From discussions with DuPont, they’re recommending coextrusion of LD [PE]/LLD[PE] with their Entira Coat 100. They claim the Entira coat has excellent bonding strength to the nonwoven and accepts digital inks very well. Of course we can make our laboratory available for any trials.

(Ex. 33; S. Visaría Tr. 302-04). The “discussions with DuPont” referenced in the email had begun the previous day, when Piora had written to Dr. Seqwana Pryor in DuPont’s P & IP division. (Ex. 35 at DSP0026771). Piora related to Dr. Pryor that he was working “on a banner project in India [ ] that is very active,” and asked her, “[i]n your experience what would be the coating thicknesses (A/B) for this type of banner application!?]” (Id.). Dr. Pryor recommended a coating thickness of [redacted] mils, and attached a data sheet on EntiraCoat. (Id. at DSP0026770; Pryor Tr. 78-79).

Piora replied by noting that “the banner material will be primarily a nonwoven substrate,” and then asked Dr. Pryor to clarify the layer distribution and coating weights for the banner application. (Ex. 35 at DSP0026769). Dr. Pryor explained:

you could do [redacted] mil A coating/ B (nonwoven) /[redacted] mil A coating ... the key is to get enough coating to print on, the strength will come from the non-woven substrate ... in some applications we’ve gone as high as [redacted-]mil. [Dr. Pryor then suggested the use of an additive package containing a flame retardant, and shared that in DuPont’s experience] Entira Coat/PE [polyethylene] or Entira Coat as the A laminate/ coating gives you the best ... feel & drapability [ ] and printability as an alternative to PVC coated banners.

(Id. at DSP0026768; Pryor Tr. 78-79).

Piora then advised Dr. Pryor that [o]ur potential customer would like to run a lab trial at our Fulton, N.Y. facility on June 2 — 5[, 2008]. The end product is advertisement banners with digital printing. Could DuPont donate some resin for this trial? 1000 pounds of En-tira. 2000 pounds of LDPE. We would like to run A/B & B/A/B structures. We hope DuPont could participate in this trial.

(Ex. 35 at DSP0026767-68). Dr. Pryor responded that EntiraCoat 100 was “restricted inventory” and that DuPont would need to know the customer’s name and “possibly [have] a confidentiality agreement in place to [perform a] trial [with] the Entira Coat 100.” (Id. at DSP0026767; Pryor Tr. 88-89).

Christine Ronaghan, a Davis-Standard process engineer, then drafted the trial plan for the First Trial with input from Ken Piora and Big Vision. (Ronaghan Tr. 39). Ronaghan was aware that Piora had reached out to Dr. Pryor at DuPont for advice regarding coating thicknesses, which Big Vision and Piora had discussed before, but recalled that Big Vision had not “actually nailed down exactly what they wanted to do.” (Id. at 74). More to the point, Ronaghan testified that prior to the First Trial, Big Vision

had targeted a specific coating weight [and] had targeted layer structures. We had discussed, again, being two layers. There’s some options; A/B; A/B/A. We talked about that. And — and they had made some recommendations and we agreed to what we wanted to try. And they had input on the fabrics. So they chose the fabrics and supplied the fabrics. So they were wholly responsible for that at that point.

(Id. at 39). When asked to describe Big Vision’s “recommendations,” Ronaghan clarified that they were not so much “recommendations,” but instead “requests,” such as “[t]his is what we would like to see, this sort of layer structure, they talked about A/B/A. And they also made some requests in terms of formulation.” (Id. at 39^10). Big Vision has not disputed Ronaghan’s testimony in this regard.

Ronaghan also recalled that Big Vision “had asked for some assistance [ ] in taking a first stab at selecting these master-batches,” so Davis-Standard “consult[ed] the suppliers of those materials and ask[ed] for their recommendations.” (Ro-naghan Tr. 40). Big Vision does not dispute that it asked Davis-Standard to select the masterbatches, which included such ubiquitous additives as Ti02 and CaC03. (S. Visaría Tr. 384).

On May 23, 2008, Piora sent Visaría a “draft of the proposed 2 day trial plan,” solicited comments and suggestions from Big Vision, and asked Big Vision to “tell us the percentages of CaC03 and when/where you would like the Ti02.” (Ex. 131 at BV-00156142-44). The draft trial plan reflected eight separate B/A/B coating structures: three did not contain Entira; one contained only Entira; and four contained Entira and LDPE, CaC03, and Ti02. (M).

The plan also indicated that a variety of finishing treatments would be used. (Id.). In response, Visaría wrote: “[w]e need to use Ti02 in all the structures to make the material white (opaque). We feel CaC03 should be added on the top layer as it would help printability.” (Id. at BV-0015641). Piora confirmed the precise masterbatches and coating amounts the next day, and promised to submit a revised trial plan “focused on good printing.”

(Id.).

When the parties met at Davis-Standard for the First Trial on June 4, 2008, Visaría began discussing the 3M Patent with the representatives from DuPont and Davis-Standard. (Pryor Tr. 39, 87-88; S. Visaría Tr. 177-79). Upon hearing this, Dr. Pryor stepped out of the conference room to call her supervisor and request that they execute a confidentiality agreement with Big Vision “to protect all parties ... including DuPont.” (Pryor Tr. 40, 108-09). Dr. Pryor also testified that DuPont commonly requires its customers to sign a confidentiality agreement in order to use a product, such as Entira, that is in “restricted inventory.” (Id. at 89).

ii. The First Trial

The First Trial was held on June 4-5, 2008. (Def. 56.1 ¶ 97). The DuPont attendees were Drs. Pryor and Chou. (PI. 56.1 ¶ 157; Ex. 165). The Big Vision attendees were Shailesh Visaría and Dr. Vasudeo. (Vasudeo Tr. 65; S. Visaría Tr. 362).

The Davis-Standard trial report (the “Trial Report”) was drafted by Christine Ronaghan, and summarizes all three Trials. (Ronaghan Tr. 117; Ex. 75). The Trial Report notes that Big Vision supplied the substrate, DuPont supplied the Entira, and Davis-Standard chose and purchased the CaC03 and Ti02 masterbatches from Schulman, a commercial masterbatch manufacturer. (Ex. 75; see also S. Visaría Tr. 384 (not disputing this fact); Ronaghan Tr. 117). The Trial Report notes that “many structures” were run, including variations of LDPE coating on the backside, different layering ratios, different coating structures and weights of Entira, different coating structures and weights of CaC03 and Ti02, and various finishing treatments. (Ex. 75).

The parties now dispute what was tested at the First Trial. It is undisputed that only A/B/A structures were coextruded onto various nonwoven substrates; that one structure was comprised only of En-tira; and that other structures were comprised of varying combinations of Entira (in concentrations of [redacted]-[redacted]%), LLDPE, LDPE, Ti02 (at [redacted]%), and CaC03 (at [redacted]%). (See PI. 56.1 ¶¶ 158-59; Def. 56.1 Response ¶¶ 158-59). The parties further agree that LDPE and LLDPE, Ti02, or CaC03 structures were tested without Entira, but DuPont argues that the LDPE structures were coated only on the back, non-printable side of the substrate. (Id.).

b. The Second Trial: August 5-6, 2008

i. Preparation for the Second Trial and Development of a Trial Plan

The second Davis-Standard trial (the “Second Trial”) was held on August 5-6, 2008. (Def. 56.1 ¶ 101). Ahead of the Second Trial, Ken Piora wrote to Drs. Pryor and Chou at DuPont on July 22, 2008, stating:

During our last trials you mentioned that you were going to make suggestions on the blended materials. We do plan to blend the ENTIRA with Ti02, CaC03, UV. Could you be so kind and make recommendations on the above?

(Ex. 36 at DSP0006146). Upon receiving no response, Piora wrote again six days later:

I have been in contact with Shailesh of Big Vision and he mentioned that you were in communication with him about the resin. 1-Do you plan to participate in the trial? 2-What is the status of the ENTIRA resin? 3-Christine has been trying to get in contact with your colleague about the Ti02, CaC03 & UV concentrates with no success yet.... Is there anyone else? As you can imagine, I am getting nervous since the trial is within 7 days.

(Id.).

H.I. Lee responded to Piora’s request the next day:

In regards with the blend ratio of Ti02, CaC03, UV with Entira Coat 100, I believe it would [ ] depend on the customer’s requirements for the opacity, UV blocking performance, etc. I don’t know if you have blended these additives in your previous trial run ... but [redacted]% blending of Ti02 would be a good starting point from my experience. We can increase blend ratio of Ti02 in further if it is needed, such as [up to] [redacted] [redacted] % ... I hope you Ken or Christine can talk to Shailesh as to this subject — what level of these additives he wants to blend with Entira Coat 100.

(Ex. 36 at DSP006141-42; Lee Tr. 206-09).

ii. The Second Trial

The Second Trial was attended by Dr. Chou, H.I. Lee, Shailesh Visaría, Urmil Visaría, Manish Avashia, and Dr. Vasudeo. (Lee Tr. 79-191; S. Visaría Tr. 364; U. Visaría Tr. 129; Avashia Tr. 33; Vasudeo Tr. 56). According to the Davis-Standard Trial Report prepared after the trial, UV additive was included for the first time per the recommendation of Schulman (the masterbatch supplier chosen by Davis-Standard), and Davis-Standard chose and purchased the CaC03, Ti02, and UV additives. (Ex. 75; Ronaghan Tr. 117-18). The report noted, and Ronaghan confirmed, that “many fabrics and various coatweights were evaluated”; that “[several changes were made [] to processing temperature, blend formulation, etc.”; and that the “removal of the UV additive” seemed to improve the appearance. (Ex. 75; Ronaghan Tr. 117-18). The amounts of Ti02 and CaC03 were increased up to [redacted]% and [redacted]%, respectively. (Ex. 75; Ronaghan Tr. 117-18).

The parties again dispute before this Court what was tested at the Second Trial. Plaintiff states that LLDPE — and LDPE — only structures were run, in addition to several structures combining Entira and LDPE. (PI. 56.1 11167). Defendant argues instead that LDPE was only coated on the reverse, nonprintable surface. (Def. 56.1 Response ¶ 167).

Shailesh Visaría testified that DuPont made additive suggestions ahead of the Second Trial, and that the parties “worked together” during that Trial to “try and identify why the problems are coming in.” (S. Visaría Tr. 350-51). Visaría further testified that the concentrations of additives were changed during the Trial. (Id.) Similarly, Urmil Visaría described the Second Trial as a “collective call between Davis-Standard and [Big Vision] and DuPont.” (U. Visaría Tr. 129). He also recalled that the “UV additives [were] not compiling with Entira,” so “we jointly discussed it and [the UV additives were] removed and after that it ran perfectly all right.” (Id. at 130). Urmil also testified that it was a “joint decision” to increase the amount of Ti02, and CaC03 by [redacted] to [redacted] percent at the trial. (Id. at 130-31).

Conversely, Christine Ronaghan testified that Big Vision was “struggling” to come up with the formulation to use, and only conveyed its desire for a more opaque product; it was either Ronaghan or Lee who suggested the specific amount of Ti02 to use. (Ronaghan Tr. 97-100; Lee Tr. 67-71). Urmil also testified (and DuPont disputes) that Big Vision determined that the amount of Entira should be down-gauged to [redacted] percent in the Second Trial (from the [redacted] percent used in the First Trial) in order to “reduce cost.” (U. Visaría Tr. 131; but see Def. 56.1 Response ¶ 166 (arguing that Big Vision did not choose the Entira amount because “H.I. Lee and Davis-Standard ran the [Second Trial]”)). The parties have not alleged what percentages of Entira were tested at the Second Trial, and the Trial Plan and Run Reports do not clearly indicate the amounts of Entira tested. (See PI. 56.1 ¶ 167; Ex. 75, 77).

c. The Third Trial: June 5, 2009

The third Davis-Standard trial (the “Third Trial”) occurred on June 5, 2009, and was attended by Shailesh Visaría and Dr. Vasudeo from Big Vision; Diane Hahm and Dr. Chou from DuPont’s P & IP division; and Rob McPheeters from DuPont’s NOW division. (Def. 56.1 ¶ 102; S. Visaría Tr. 376; Vasudeo Tr. 58; Hahm Tr. 129; Chou Tr. 229).

Diane Hahm testified that she drafted the trial plan for the Third Trial (the “Third Trial Plan”) with input from Davis-Standard personnel, who conveyed Big Vision’s “goal” to manufacture a recyclable, white, non-PVC banner. (Hahm Tr. 96-98). Big Vision does not dispute this testimony. (PI. 56.1 Response ¶ 102). Christine Ronaghan testified similarly that Hahm recommended and supplied the additives for the formulations that were run at the Third Trial. (Ronaghan Tr. 116). Hahm recalled that Big Vision asked for DuPont’s assistance because “they didn’t have any processing experience ... of their own.” (Hahm Tr. 94, 96-98). Shail-esh Visaría conceded that DuPont suggested the additives for the Third Trial. (S. Visaría Tr. 387-88).

The Davis-Standard Trial Report stated:

The objective of the third trial was to process the DuPont recommended formulations in an AB structure onto various grades of CLAF [nonwoven] fabric. The scope of the trial was not a continuation of Trial 2, since all additive packages were different, and the UV and FR [flame retardant] were new to the blend. In retrospect, the amounts of materials supplied, including fabric, additives, LDPE were inadequate given that the formulations and materials had all changed.

(Ex. 75 (emphasis added); Ronaghan Tr. 118-21). The Trial Report further noted that “DuPont made additive recommendation[s] based on previous experience in their lab with the Entira resin and various masterbatch grades.” (Ex. 75; Ronaghan Tr. 116, 134-35). The formulations included Ti02, CaC03, UV additives, and flame retardants. (Ronaghan Tr. 116).

The Trial Report noted that “[t]here remain several concerns over formulation [including opacity from the Ti02 levels, the level of flame retardancy, and the additive package to be selected].... DuPont will be issuing a report on formulation and planned testing at their site to assist [Big Vision] in defining the required blends for their application.” (Ex. 75; Hahm Tr. 118-19 (testifying to the internal tests DuPont ran for Big Vision in order to troubleshoot the die-buildup issue experienced at the Third Trial)). The Report also detailed the various structures and formulations run, and the problems encountered with each. (Id.). The Report ended by noting that “substantial questions regarding the optimal formulation still exist,” and recommended that DuPont work with Big Vision to “optimize blend formulation” at small-scale tests at DuPont. (Id.).

Diane Hahm recalled that at the Third Trial, the Ti02 percentage was increased to [redacted] percent, which, in Hahm’s opinion, caused the “mixing” to become poor and the samples to have a “very poor appearance.” (Hahm Tr. 103). Hahm also testified that at the trial, she “explain[ed] the trial plan [to Big Vision] and explained the extrusion coating process, because they were not familiar with that whole process.” (Id. at 98). Hahm prepared a post-trial report, in which she recommended a three-layer coextruded option as the easiest structure to run at the lowest cost. (Id. at 104-05). Going forward, Hahm promised to research for Big Vision whether the product’s opacity could be increased by any means other than increasing the Ti02 level. (Id. at 106).

Visaría wrote Davis-Standard shortly after the Third Trial to express his “ex-tremen disappointment with] the way [the] trial had been conducted and concluded.” (Ex. 19). In the e-mail, Visaría reviewed the different structures and formulations run during the trial, and concluded:

this has been our third trial and we have always failed to run proper UV, FR, Ti02 and CaCo[3] with or without En-tira. Plus what the point of all the planning and trials when you tell me at the trial that the Entire and LDPE have different melting point. I think we should have been informed if that was the problem th[e]n we could have taken corrective steps before.

(Id.; S. Visaría Tr. 361 (agreeing with this statement)). In response, Davis-Standard noted that the “[s]pecific additive packages for opacity and flame retardants, whether for LDPE or Entire are well outside our area of expertise ... DuPont has expressed this same concern, and is devoting a lot of effort into developing that additive package.” (Ex. 21). Visaría and Davis-Standard exchanged several e-mails in July 2009 regarding the proper amount of Ti02 to use with Entire, in order to correct certain problems that were encountered at the Third Trial. (Ex. 22-23; S. Visaría Tr. 373-74). Subsequently, Davis-Standard described the different structures run in the Second and Third Trials, and stated that the additive package was currently “undetermined because of Big Vision’s evolving product requirements.” (Ex. 23).

The parties planned a fourth trial for July 2009. In e-mails between Visaría and Hahm in early July 2009, Visaría sent his proposed formulation for a three-layer structure. (Ex. 38; S. Visaría Tr. 375 (noting that the formulation he sent included structures run at the Second Trial). In response, Hahm noted that “[t]here are still a few things we have to determine [including flame retardant levels and the thickness of LDPE and reclaim layers in order to impart opacity].... [W]e will be working to give you guidance on this.” (Id. at DSP0014418-19; Hahm Tr. 118-19). Hahm reassured Visaría that “Entire Coat is being commercially run today for banners [and ... ] its processing characteristics are well known.” (Ex. 38 at DSP0014419; Hahm Tr. 112)). Hahm further noted that the Third Trial did not produce useful samples because “there was just too high a temp run, and then too high a Ti02 level run.” (Ex. 38 at DSP0014419). In a later e-mail, Hahm noted that “the operators threw in [redacted^ of the Ti02 masterbatch in the LDPE[, which ...] was over the limit we set [of] [redacted]% of masterbatch,” and that as a result Hahm “knew the samples would look awful.” (Id.; Hahm Tr. 117-18 (confirming that [redaeted]% Ti02 was tested); S. Visaría Tr. 378 (“we went up to, I think, [redacted] percent [Ti02]”)).

Throughout July 2009, Visaría and Hahm continued to discuss the proper formulation and structures to employ. (See Ex. 39). Later in 2009, however, Big Vision terminated its relationships with both Davis-Standard and DuPont.

6. Big Vision’s Contacts with Additional Third Parties Regarding Its Recyclable Banner Project

After the Second and Third Trials, Big Vision contacted at least 11 different third parties, and appeared to seek a new machine manufacturer. (S. Visaría Tr. 191— 95, 204-18; Shokar Tr. 33-35; Ex. 66-72). Big Vision disclosed its intended recyclable banner formulation in considerable detail, while continuing to disclose the “recipe” from the 3M Patent. (S. Visaría Tr. 191— 95, 204-18; Shokar Tr. 33-35; Ex. 66-72). Shailesh Visaría conceded that he did not enter into written confidentiality agreements with any of those third parties, but alleges that he orally “communicated with them [his] confidentiality.” (S. Visaría Tr. 191-95, 204-18). In at least one instance, however, Visaría disclosed Big Vision’s intended formulation to a manufacturer without any prior or subsequent communications to “ensure confidentiality.” (Ex. 68; S. Visaría Tr. 209-10).

7. Big Vision’s Indian Patent Application and Continued Banner Development

On June 30, 2009, Visaría filed a patent application in India for “a graphics substrate for digital printing application and method of manufacturing thereof.” (Ex. 74; No. 1536/MUW2009). Indian patent applications are publicly available, and Vi-saría requested early publication of the same. (S. Visaría Tr. 405; see http:// ipindiaservices.gov.in/patentsearch/ PublishedSearch/publishApplication Number.aspx? application — number=mu SKPXpSpbKLViTuhKFeSg==). Visaría testified that the patent “was a much [] broader and wider patent in [terms] of the process” than Big Vision’s proffered trade secret. (S. Visaría Tr. 406-07). Yet the patent disclosed, among other things:

i. A nonwoven polyethylene “core layer” having good tensile strength;

ii. A top layer comprising CaCOg, LDPE, or LLDPE;

iii. Extrusion coating; lamination; and coextrusion;

iv. Thickness of the top layer kept at a minimum, including the use of copo-lymers and “acrylic materials”; and

v. Corona, plasma, flame, or E-Beam finishing treatments.

(Def. 56.1 ¶ 120; Ex. 74). Visaría acknowledged that the patent referenced “learn-ings [from] the Second Trial.” (S. Visaría Tr. 410-11).

Big Vision continued to conduct trials from 2009 through 2011 to further refine its recyclable banner formulation, both in-house and at third-party manufacturers’ facilities. (U. Visaría Tr. 23-34). Big Vision settled on its desired recyclable banner formulation around 2011, ultimately adding the terpolymer TX 8030 and the resin paraloid. (Id. at 25-27, 33-34). Big Vision does not intend to use Entira. (Id. at 33-34). As of January 2013, Big Vision had yet to manufacture in-house, or to sell, a recyclable banner. (S. Visaría Tr. 79).

8. DuPont’s Continued Development of Recyclable Banners

a. NOW’s Discussions with Big Vision in 2008-2009

Starting in July 2008, Big Vision was introduced to DuPont’s NOW division to discuss using one of their nonwoven fabrics, such as Tyvek, as a substrate. (PI. 56.1 ¶ 206; Def. 56.1 Response ¶ 206). A representative from NOW attended the Third Trial for this reason, and in July 2009, NOW and Big Vision signed a second NDA (the “second NDA”; collectively with the first NDA, the “NDAs”). (Def. 56.1 ¶ 103; Def. 56.1 Response ¶ 206). The second NDA was identical to the first NDA, save for a somewhat broader purpose, that of exploring “a possible business opportunity of mutual interest regarding graphic products.” (Compl. Ex. B). Annette Kim, a marketing manager in NOW, explained that NOW personnel did not know whether the first NDA applied to both P & IP and NOW (which it did, see Discussion Sec. B(3), infra), so NOW and Big Vision executed a second NDA “just to make sure.” (Kim Tr. 9, 257-58).

As a result of NOW’s discussions with Big Vision, a number of e-mails were circulated within NOW between 2008 and 2009 regarding Big Vision, several of which are cited by Plaintiff in support of its current claims. In the context of NOW’s discussions with Big Vision, Steve Wilkinson, a NOW employee, circulated a PowerPoint presentation entitled “Key Learnings From Big Vision” to a number of people within NOW. (Ex. 95). In the cover email, Wilkinson wrote:

Meeting Big Vision in Mumbai was key for me to really understand at first hand their business model (and for us to further compare with Nonwoven’s model). [ ] This company certainly appears to be in the correct location of the value chain to help gain business from[ ] PVC, they have done their homework and are confident that they have lowered their total system cost [and] can compete on price. Key will be to see just how good they are at influencing the industry to change. As you know, their move to back integrate and purchase coextrusion technology is key to help them lower costs.

[T]hey have tried to find other banner material than Entira Coat but say we have an advantage in that our materials print on a wide variety of printers and is [a] more robust solution ...

For us, how do we find similar channel partners in other key countries that have large amount fo[r] banner Ads running constantly through their country like India! ?

I’m doubtful that Nonwovens has a) the right costs in banner material design due to their margins to compete against PVC, b) that Nonwovens has the recycle loop securely figured into their launch plans.

(Id. at DSP0009538-39). The slides in the PowerPoint presentation include (i) “What are the key needs that Entira Coat meets for Big Vision” (including attributes and benefits like printability, recyclability, and weight); and (ii) “Big Vision’s Recyclable, Non-PVC Banner, Business Model— The Recycle cycle.” (Id. at DSP0009540-42). DuPont’s role in selling Entira to Big Vision is highlighted in the recycle loop slide. (Id. at DSP0009542).

Around July 2009, NOW engaged in further discussions with Big Vision in order to ascertain whether Big Vision could be a “toll coater” for DuPont, meaning that Big Vision would manufacture banners pursuant to DuPont’s specifications, but that DuPont would market and sell the products. (Kim Tr. 98-99). The discussions appeared productive from both sides. On July 7, 2009, Shailesh Visaría e-mailed Annette Kim and other employees of DuPont’s NOW division, and noted that he would be sending them banner samples that had been printed on solvent inkjet and UV inkjet machines. (Ex. 99 at BV-0011782; Kim Tr. 263-67). He detailed the technical specifications of the extrusion coating machine Davis-Standard was building for Big Vision, and asked Kim if the “configuration would meet your coating requirement.” (Id.). He then asked Kim what DuPont’s coating requirement would be, and their current business model for toll coating companies. (Ex. 99 at BV-0011782). Visaría closed the e-mail by writing “[njeedless to say all the information we share on our product in all our communication needs to be dealt with utmost confidentiality.” (Id.). Kim replied by noting that they were in the process of drafting a confidentiality agreement. (Id.; Kim Tr. 263-67). Several days later, Visa-ría asked Kim to send Big Vision certain samples for inkjet and solvent inkjet printing. (Ex. 99 at BV-0011779-81).

In early April 2010, Annette Kim drafted a presentation for NOW entitled “Sustainability Is a Business Imperative.” (Ex. 96). The presentation noted that “DuPont Tyvek Vivia is a sustainable solution,” and that “DuPont Tyvek is recyclable and reusable.” (Id. at DSP0962596-97). The presentation outlined a “DuPont Life-cycle Based Solutions” program in which “[tjhrough an alliance with Waste Management, we’ve created a national ship-back recycling program to capture the items printed on DuPont Tyvek Vivia.” (Id. at DSP0962601-02). In response, Steve Wilkinson wrote that “[tjhis is very similar to the Big Vision idea [... ] let’s hope we see some sales!!” (Id. at DSP0962587).

b. DuPont’s Internal Evaluation of a Potential Commercial Relationship with Big Vision

Following the Second Trial, and in light of Dr. Chou’s sales estimates of Entira to Big Vision in the range of several million pounds per year, NOW began discussions with P & IP regarding a “One DuPont” approach. (See Ex. 167; Kim Tr. 77-80; Chou Tr. 215-18; Welchel Tr. 19-20). The idea behind “One DuPont” is that although each division reports its own profit and loss statements, partnerships between divisions that would benefit DuPont as a whole are encouraged. (Kim Tr. 77-80). Thus, NOW and P & IP began discussing the costs and benefits of several different approaches, including (i) selling Entira and NOW’s fabrics to Big Vision as customer; (ii) using Big Vision as a toll coater; or (iii) having NOW enter into an exclusivity agreement with P & IP so that P & IP would not sell Entira to a potential competitor like Big Vision. (Id. at 77-80, 95-99; Welchel Tr. 35-45; Ex. 188, 189).

Wayne Welchel, a business development manager in DuPont’s P & IP division, worked with P & IP and NOW to calculate the potential sales DuPont might experience in each of the above scenarios. (Wel-chel Tr. 35-45). As part of those calculations, Welchel obtained from H.I. Lee the coating thickness of Entira tested at the First and Second Trials, since the amount of Entira sold directly corresponded to the amount used. (Id. at 40-45, 92-95; Ex. 188, 189). Around that time, the sharing of information regarding Big Vision between NOW and P & IP caused another P & IP employee, Kevin McAllister, to protest that P & IP should not be “sharing key learnings of downgauging with NOW” and that it was a “problem which needfed] to be rectified IMMEDIATELY.” (Ex. 189). Welchel made clear that he did not share the concerns implicated by McAllis-ter’s e-mail, since in his experience, “customers will always downgauge products that in turn result in less of [P & IP’s] material being used.” (Welchel Tr. 108-09).

Welchel shared his financial calculations with NOW in order to evaluate the benefit to DuPont of each option. (Ex. 181; Wel-chel Tr. 73-74). Welchel summarized this e-mail by stating “[b]ased on what I’ve done so far, there is so much difference in the products, the only question is will NOW get any business at all, even replacing the fabric with a cheaper nonwoven.” (Ex. 181; Welchel Tr. 92-96). Welchel testified (again, without contradiction in the record) that his comment was made in the context of evaluating DuPont’s potential relationship with Big Vision, and reflected his view that if Big Vision were to use a product with anything less than 100% Entira, it would be more cost-competitive in lower-cost markets than NOW’s existing 100% Entira offerings. (Welchel Tr. 92-96).

Welchel subsequently circulated a PowerPoint presentation evaluating the various “One DuPont” options regarding recyclable banners. In that presentation, Welchel wrote: “If we mimic Big Visions’ structure, what value does One DuPont bring?” (Ex. 188). The bullet points under that statement read “non-DuPont fabric” and “downgauge, dilute Entira coating.” (Id.). Welchel testified that he did not recall suggesting that NOW “mimic” any structure, and certainly did not speak with any NOW scientists or chemists regarding the project. (Welchel Tr. 58-59, 96-97). Welchel testified that the word “mimic” referred to a “more downgauged structure that in turn resulted] in less potential revenue to P & IP.” (Id.). In other words, if NOW used less Entira, as Big Vision planned to do, it would result in lower sales of P & IP’s resin. (Id.).

c. Continued Recyclable Banner Development

Tom Benim took over the NOW recyclable banner project from Eric Teather in 2008, and continued development of DuPont’s Vivia line throughout 2008 and 2009. (Benim Tr. 174-83). When Benim took over the project, he began development of the “second generation” of Vivia products, which was intended to be a lower-cost product than the “first generation,” En-tira-only product. (Benim Tr. 140, 161— 64).

In the fall of 2008, Benim participated in a call with P & IP. (PI. 56.1 ¶ 194). His handwritten notes from that call included the words “[redacted] mil,” which Plaintiff alleges was the precise coating weight of Entira used in one of the structures tested at the Second Trial. (Id.). Benim testified that at that time, he was considering a [redacted]-[redacted] mils coating thickness of Entira, and had no recollection of why he wrote “[redacted] mil.” (Benim Tr. 157-58). Benim testified, without contradiction, that he did was not aware that DuPont P & IP had participated in joint trials with Big Vision, and did not recall speaking with anyone in P & IP regarding those trials, including the fact that Entira had been downgauged at those trials. (Benim Tr. 124, 158-59). As of August 2008, Benim was aware that there was at least one company developing lower-cost banners by using less Entira. (Id. at 164-65). Benim further testified that he first learned of Big Vision in July 2009. (Id. at 157-58).

Benim conducted a test in January 2009 at DuPont’s Egan extrusion coating line in which he coextruded Entira with LDPE. (Benim Tr. 170-84). Big Vision alleges that Benim coextruded [redacted]% Entira with [redacted]% LDPE in one layer of the structure, but does not allege the coating weight of Entira used in this structure, much less that it was [redacted] mils. (PI. 56.1 ¶ 194; PI. Opp. 6-7).

In preparation for that test, in December 2008, Benim asked Hahm to order Entira Coat 100 and LDPE so that he could “check a ‘coextrude’ concept.” (Ex. 118; Benim Tr. 176-84). Consistent with H.I. Lee’s testimony, Benim also testified that in his opinion, coextruding Entira with LDPE was the “natural thing to try” in the “second! ]generation” of what had previously been an Entira-only product. (Benim Tr. 160-61, 166). Benim testified that he had experience downgauging expensive resins as early as 1995. (Id. at 164-65). Benim did not recall whether Hahm suggested coextrusion. (Id. at 173). Benim continued to test and refine DuPont’s recyclable banner products throughout 2009. (See generally id. at 107-09, 122-24, 135-39, 233-50). In the third quarter of 2009, Benim shifted his development efforts to a high opacity banner product, in response to market demands. (Id. at 237).

DuPont’s Vivia 2082 VI product was released in April 2009, and included a single layer of Entira with Ti02, extruded onto a Tyvek substrate. (Benim Deck ¶ 5). Next, DuPont’s Vivia 2083 VI was introduced, which consisted of a single layer of LDPE with Ti02 and CaC03, extruded onto a Tyvek substrate. (Id. at ¶ 6). Lastly, DuPont’s Vivia High Opacity 2082 HO was introduced, and consisted of two layers of LDPE extruded via multiple-pass extrusion onto a Tyvek substrate, with Ti02, carbon black, and CaC03. (Id. at ¶ 7). Of those products, only Vivia 2082HO is available on the market today; the other Vivia products did not sell well. (Nov. 5 Tr. 5-6).

DuPont released its Imvelo and Imvelo Deco products to the market in 2010 and 2011. (Nov. 5 Tr. 5-6). Those products were LDPE-based and included Ti02 and CaC03, but did not use Entira and were not manufactured by coextrusion. (PL 56.1 ¶ 214). These products were sold only in Europe, and are no longer commercially available today, in part because they, too, did not sell well. (Nov. 5 Tr. 5-6). Overall, the Vivia and Imvelo lines of banners sold significantly less than DuPont had originally forecasted. (Kim Tr. 34-36, 150-53, 308-09).

B. Procedural History

1. The Instant Action

Big Vision filed the instant action on November 23, 2011, alleging claims of breach of contract, misappropriation of trade secrets, and unfair competition. (Dkt. # 1).

2. Big Vision’s Shifting Trade Secret Theory

a. As Pled in the Complaint

Of significance to the instant motion (and of some concern to the Court), the trade secret descriptions advanced by Big Vision have changed dramatically over the course of the litigation. In the Complaint, Big Vision alleged that its “precise technical innovation” — and the trade secret DuPont misappropriated — was “[a] ‘[r]ecyclable coated banner 'in which Iay-ers of ethylene acrylic resin are affixed, via ‘extrusion coatfing]’ to a [planar polyo-lefin banner substrate].” (Compl. ¶¶ 1, 4, 14-21, 22, 25-27, 33, 48-50; Def. 56.1 ¶¶ 19, 21). Big Vision also alleged that it “devised a way to construct a substrate from a ‘non-woven’ [ ] fabric” (Compl. ¶ 17), and that it “figured out [ ] through a process known as ‘downgauging’ how to create different price points of banners” (id. at ¶ 21). Big Vision further alleged that principal among Big Vision’s innovations was the determination of “how to make cost-effective banners that require only the smallest amount of ethylene acrylic resin,” by “increasing the relative amounts of less-expensive LDPE and other additives.” (Compl. ¶ 21; PL 56.1 Response ¶ 18). Big Vision alleged that En-tira was an “ethylene acrylic resin.” (Compl. ¶25).

Big Vision alleged that DuPont misappropriated its “recycle loop,” which it defined as “a sophisticated business model ‘creating] incentives for every player in the process, from printers to installers to corporate end-users, to share responsibility for the various tasks required to implement a recycle loop.’ ” (Compl. ¶ 22, 61; Pl. 56.1 Response ¶ 21).

Big Vision lastly described its trade secrets as follows: “its technical designs for a recyclable banner material and the methods and materials necessary to place a high-quality image on that material; proprietary market research concerning the size and drivers of the international market for banners; including detailed cost and margin projections; and designs and models for implementing a feasible and viable ‘recycle loop’ for collecting and reprocessing used banners.” (Compl. ¶ 78).

b. As Described in Interrogatories

DuPont filed its answer on December 20, 2011, and the parties proceeded thereafter to discovery for a period of approximately 13 months. (Dkt. # 5, 22, 47). At an initial conference before United States Magistrate Judge Theodore H. Katz on March 12, 2012, in response to questioning from the Court and DuPont regarding what Big Vision actually claimed as its trade secret, Big Vision alleged that “the combination and the process for combining” certain elements disclosed at the Davis-Standard trials constituted its trade secret. (Transcript of March 12, 2012 Proceedings at 24, 32, 33). Five months later, on August 22, 2012, DuPont protested before Judge Katz that “Big Vision [has] refused to specify what its trade secret is”; accordingly, Judge Katz required Big Vision to further identify its trade secrets. (Transcript of August 22, 2012 Proceedings at 7). Consequently, Big Vision identified its trade secret in a six-page definition submitted as part of a September 24, 2012 interrogatory response. (Ex. 90). Among many other things, Big Vision articulated:

i. “a polyolefin-based product” with a “chemically similar polyolefin coating like LDPE” (Ex. 16 at 3);

ii. “a multilayer structure combining nonpolar polyolefin polymers with polar polyolefin polymers or a post-coating treatment providing polar functionality or both, along with a polyolefin substrate,” which is reflected in the structures and formulations run at the Davis-Standard Trials, which were reflected in approximately 70 pages of laboratory materials (id. at 3-4);

iii. “polyethylene or polypropylene nonwoven substrates, such as Ty-vek, Xavan, or CLAF” (id. at 4-5);

iv. “novel quantities” of additives such as “Ti02, CaC03, UV-stabilizer, and FR additive” and “introduction of LDPE in significant quantities” (id. at 5-6);

v. banner products could be “manufactured through a state-of-the-art coextrusion process”; “developing insights including the temperature profile at which an ethylene acrylate copolymer like Entira could be coex-truded with LDPE”; the “requisite die structure for coextruding these two resins;” and “the proper screw design for this application” (id. at 6); and

vi. a “proprietary business model” for the “recycling loop,” including financial incentives “for end users to the banners to return the used banners through recycling” (id. at 7).

Big Vision lastly alleged that “over the course of its banner development efforts, Big Vision established a banner ... [that] could be used to print with a full range of commercial inks, including UV, solvent, and eco-solvent inks.” (Id. at 6).

Defendant objected shortly thereafter to Plaintiffs response as vague, writing, “[i]t is now more than ten months since Big Vision filed its complaint, and DuPont has yet to be advised of the trade secrets upon which the complaint is based. As a result, DuPont cannot prepare a defense [ ... or] determine if it is using Big Vision’s alleged trade secrets.” (Ex. 148). Specifically, DuPont asked Big Vision to:

i. “[I]dentify the specific ‘solution’ which Big Vision maintained as a trade secret [ ] including the specific substrate, specific coating and specific trade secret combination/ formulation” (id. at 2); and

i.Identify what constitutes, for example, “appropriate amount[s],” “post-coating treatments,” “coating thicknesses,” “novel quantities and combinations,” “insights,” and “novel amount” {id. at 2-4); and further noted that

iii. The [Davis-Standard Trial documents] “include a number of different materials, blends, equipment, extrusion methods and additives ... which of these does Big Vision claim constitute its trade secret?” {Id. at 3).

The parties met and conferred shortly thereafter. (PL 56.1 ¶ 219; Ex. 83, 148). After the meet and confer, Big Vision followed up in writing on October 12, 2012, to confirm that, among other things, (i) Big Vision did not claim a multilayered structure as its trade secret, but rather claimed “the specific multilayered structures” reflected in the Run Reports and Trial Plans from the Davis-Standard Trials; (ii) Big Vision’s trade secret “mix of pigments and additives,” “coating thicknesses,” and “appropriate amounts” were disclosed in the Run Reports and Trial Plans; (iii) Big Vision did not claim “post-coating treatment” or “corona treatment” as its trade secrets; (iv) Big Vision did not claim “downgauging” as its trade secret; (v) its trade secret related to “reducing the amount of functional polyolefin” was disclosed in the Run Reports and Trial Plans; and (v) to the extent Big Vision claimed “novel quantities and combinations” as its trade secret, those were identified in the Run Reports and Trial Plans. (Ex. 104). DuPont subsequently withdrew its threatened motion to compel. (PI. 56.1 ¶ 220).

c. As Described in Big Vision’s Expert Report

Later in discovery, Big Vision’s expert witness proffered yet another version of its trade secret, this one a five-element trade secret that the expert claimed was novel in combination, namely:

i. a “[s]uitably strong polyolefin central layer”;

ii. . “high pigment levels, including CaC03”;

iii. “a layered structure made by coex-trusion or a lamination of a predominantly LDPE structure”;

iv. “minimal use of Entira or other expensive resins”; and

v. “surface treatment.”

(Ex. 11). Plaintiffs expert also alleged that the trade secret could be expressed to “include [a] parallel concept [] based on non-functional olefins modified for printa-bility with CaC03 and optional surface treatments.” {Id. at vii). Big Vision argues that the five-element trade secret was “embodied]” in the “precise structures run at the June 2008 trial” (i.e., the First Trial), which were “recorded on Big Vision’s behalf by Davis-Standard” and are reflected in the Run Reports and Trial Plans. (PI. 56.1 Response ¶ 17).

Big Vision alleges that some of the confidential information it conveyed to DuPont was reflected in DuPont’s Provisional Patent Application No. 61 / 118,129, which concerned a “ ‘recyclable coated banner,’ in which layers of ethylene acrylic resin [En-tira] are affixed, via ‘extrusion coat[ing]’ to a ‘planar polyolefin banner substrate.’ ” (Compl. ¶ 50; Def. 56.1 ¶ 19). Big Vision alleges that DuPont later formally filed Patent Application No. 12/624,684, with this same information. (Compl. ¶ 53; Def. 56.1 ¶ 20). In its Complaint, Big Vision further alleges that DuPont’s Vivia, Imve-lo, and Imvelo Deco products reflected use of Big Vision’s trade secret. (Def. 56.1 ¶ 22). Big Vision subsequently acknowledged that two of DuPont’s Vivia products that were brought to market in 2009, 2085 VI and 2082 VI, were developed solely by DuPont, but claimed nonetheless that DuPont “used its exposure to Big Vision’s work to troubleshoot the technical shortcomings that i[t] faced with its original Vivia product.” (Id. at ¶ 23; PL 56.1 Response ¶ 23).

3. The Instant Motion

This case was reassigned to the undersigned on June 25, 2013. (Dkt. # 50). Pursuant to instructions from the Honorable Andrew L. Carter, the District Judge then assigned to the case, DuPont filed a motion for summary judgment on July 26, 2013, which motion was fully briefed on August 30, 2013. (Dkt. # 56, 57, 58, 59, 60). All materials related to the motion for summary judgment were filed under seal pursuant to a protective order entered by Magistrate Judge Katz on April 26, 2012. (Dkt. #25). Oral argument was held before the Court on November 5, 2013. (See Dkt. # 61).

On February 10, 2014, the Court filed an unredacted copy of this Opinion under seal. On that same day, the Court provided the parties with a copy of both the unredacted Opinion and of the Court’s proposed redactions to that Opinion. Pursuant to the Court’s directions, the parties will file their summary judgment materials publicly by February 28, 2014, with certain limited categories of information redacted. The corresponding portions of this Opinion will then be redacted and filed publicly. The Court now considers the pending motion for summary judgment.

DISCUSSION

A. Applicable Law

Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a), summary judgment may be granted only if all the submissions taken together “show[] that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986).

The moving party bears the initial burden of demonstrating “the absence of a genu