in no way constitutes a “trade secret.” (Docket # 195 at 48). The presumption is that information is within the public domain unless that information is protected by some “body of law” that creates an intellectual property right. ConFold Pacific, Inc., 433 F.3d at 959. Here, as the information in question is “not secret and [is] not protected by any of the laws that create property rights in information, it is in the public domain and freely usable.” Id. Put another way, as a matter of law, Wisconsin’s law of unjust enrichment dictates that it is “not inequitable” when one obtains the benefit of information that is not protected by some intellectual property right, such as a patent or a trade secret. Id.; see also Major Mat Co. v. Monsanto Co., 969 F.2d 579, 585 (7th Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>); Studio & Partners, s.r.l. v. KI, No.
holding that the plaintiff may proceed under a claim for breach of contract and unjust enrichment because the defendant admitted the existence of a contract solely for the purposes of summary judgment holding that unjust enrichment claim alleging fraudulent inducement was based on tort theory holding that plaintiffs unjust enrichment claim was predicated on tort and that it was therefore subject to the statute of limitations for tort actions holding that a claim based on the plaintiffs allegation that it conferred a benefit on the defendant by revealing a market which the defendant later exploited without compensating the plaintiff fails to state a claim under wisconsins unjust enrichment law holding that where an express contract was in place between plaintiff and defendant that governed the compensation sought by plaintiff plaintiff may not recover under a theory of unjust enrichment