ÿWPCÞ 8#  UN+ %y 0 cU<âw@4^r 0§ AQ( 0Jy 0Tà 0^ 0hu 0rÝ 0|O 0†ËQ 0Y 1ué 0d^ 0@ D3 0D5 U>y B)· DCà AM# Bp Æ 0DS 0D— D/Û B U*'bQ˜³YKY¤ZýU6Wv~vÓ ˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLÜÏ(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX(;cW$¡¡Ò°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€XaBXXXÔ-šBu Z‹$Arrus BT Roman -E.[/0E12U3î4Ó€5Ó€A§aö"x3|xA(W(3а$¤¤Ý ƒcW!ÝÒ°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€XT_XXXÔÝ  Ýà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó*+ ,-Cþÿ<< Cÿÿ2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò))))'ÿÿdxd(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d&&&&7Border 1dd* 'Cþÿ << Gÿÿ dƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó..'÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd< Œ 9p`(Arial XÝ ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€%ÔÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ+"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€/ÔÔ€/ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€/XÔÌÌò òSeptemberÏ5,Ï1997ÌÌCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.ÌÔ€/ôÔAppellateÏCourtÏClerkó ó ŽÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€%ÔÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€Dixon€filed€two€separate€motions€to€amend€the€complaint,€but€theÏrecord€does€not€contain€any€orders€on€these€motions.€€However,€Nike€answeredÏthe€amendments€so€we€assume€the€complaint€was€properly€amended.Ì OÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€%ÔÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€We€note€that€Nike€filed€a€motion€to€strike€Dixonððs€affidavits€from€theÏrecord€and€that€the€trial€court€granted€the€motion.€€However,€because€NikeððsÏmotion€came€over€three€months€after€Dixon€filed€his€notice€of€appeal,€the€trialÏcourt€no€longer€had€jurisdiction€to€enter€the€order€striking€Dixonððs€affidavits.€ÏTherefore,€we€will€consider€Dixonððs€affidavits€as€they€appear€in€the€record.Ì OÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€%ÔÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€The€record€indicates€that€Puma,€a€rival€company,€has€a€patent€on€anÏidea€similar€to€Dixonððs€idea€for€mileage€counters€directly€in€the€shoe.Ì PÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€%ÔÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€We€note€that€it€is€common€for€this€Court€to€see€citations€to€statutesÏthat€do€not€apply,€but€it€is€rare€that€we€see€an€apology€for€citing€them.Ì< Œ 9p`(Courier NewPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€%ÔÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7€|âXXdðdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÞ ÞÌà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àWESTERN€SECTION€AT€JACKSONÌà àà à€€€€______________________________________________ÌÌò òALTON€F.€DIXON,€ó óÌÌà àPlaintiff„Appellant,Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àShelby€Equity€No.€106551„1ÌVs.à àà àà àà àà àà àà àC.A.€No.€02A01„9702„CH„00049ÌÌò òNIKE,€INC.,€ó óÌÌà àDefendant„Appellee.Ì____________________________________________________________________________ÌÌà@ àFROM€THE€SHELBY€COUNTY€CHANCERY€COURTÌà@ àTHE€HONORABLE€NEAL€SMALL,€CHANCELLORÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌà@ àAlton€F.€Dixon,€Pro€SeÌÌà@ àHerbert€E.€Gerson,€Michelle€S.€Harkavy;Ìà@ àMcKnight€Hudson€Lewis€Ford€&€Harrison€of€MemphisÌÌÌÌÌÌÙ€*ÙßR€(0'A1-j|þI` à. `€€@ÿRßÌà@ àò òòòAFFIRMEDÌÌà@ àó óóóOpinion€filed:€ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òW.€FRANK€CRAWFORD,€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àPRESIDING€JUDGE,€W.S.ÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌALAN€E.€HIGHERS,€JUDGEÌÌHOLLY€KIRBY€LILLARD,€JUDGEó óÌÌÌ›Ñ „ ÑÑ „ ÑÓÓà àPlaintiff,€Alton€F.€Dixon,€appeals€the€order€of€the€trial€court€grantingÏsummary€judgment€to€defendant,€Nike,€Inc.€€Nike€is€a€manufacturer€of€sportingÏgoods,€footwear,€and€apparel,€and€Dixon€was€an€at„will€employee€of€Nike.€€NikeÏencourages€its€employees€to€actively€participate€in€improving€their€workÏenvironment€and€in€implementing€ideas€for€new€products€on€the€marketÏthrough€a€program€called€ð ðI€Got€It.ðð€€The€program€invites€Nikeððs€employees€toÏsubmit€ideas€that€ð ðeliminate€waste,€improve€the€way€we€work,€increaseÏproductivity,€prevent€accidents,€save€time,€money,€or€energy.ðð€€Employees€canÏalso€submit€ideas€for€new€products€or€inventions.€€In€a€weekly€bulletin€forÏemployees,€Nike€stated,€ð ðIf€what€you€are€suggesting€is€an€idea€for€a€new€productÏor€invention,€to€protect€you€and€NIKE,€a€letter€of€understanding€will€be€sent€forÍyour€signature€stating,€in€essence,€that€NIKE€will€not€use€your€product€ideaÏuntil€a€written€contract€is€negotiated€and€signed.ððÌ€à àAccording€to€the€programððs€guidelines,€Nike€will€quickly€respond€to€anÏemployeeððs€idea:€€ð ðUpon€receipt€of€your€idea,€òòI€Got€It!óó€will€fire€off€a€note€ofÏacknowledgment.€€From€there€your€idea€is€routed€to€the€appropriate€area€forÏanalysis.€€Within€four€to€six€weeks,€you€will€receive€a€status€report€outlining€theÏinitial€response€and/or€feasibility€of€your€suggestion.ðð€€Nike€can€accept€or€rejectÏany€idea€submitted€and€has€no€obligation€to€reward€its€employees€for€theirÏsuggestions.€€In€addition,€the€pre„printed€ð ðI€Got€It!ðð€idea€submission€formÏrequires€a€signature€of€the€employee€and€states,€ð ðI€hereby€assign€to€Nike€allÏrights,€title€and€interest€in€and€to€my€suggestion/idea.ðð€€Ìà àDixon€submitted€numerous€ideas€to€the€ð ðI€Got€It!ðð€program.€€InÏDecember€1993,€he€suggested€an€idea€for€a€sneaker€with€a€mileage€counterÏdevice€to€track€the€distance€traveled€in€the€shoes.€€Nike€did€not€immediatelyÏrespond€to€Dixonððs€idea,€so€in€March€1994,€he€submitted€it€a€second€time.€ÏOnce€again,€Nike€did€not€respond€with€a€letter€of€acknowledgment.€€In€AugustÏor€September€1994,€Dixon€attended€a€meeting€where€he€gave€Mike€Caster,€theÏMemphis€Apparel€General€Manager€for€Nike,€a€copy€of€the€idea€for€a€mileageÏcounter.€€Finally,€on€April€24,€1995,€Dixon€received€a€form€declining€hisÏsuggestion€because€it€was€not€a€new€idea€and€because€Nike€already€owned€aÍ1986€patent€on€the€idea.€€Nike€did€not€want€to€reconsider€mileage€counters€inÏshoes€because€it€had€problems€implementing€the€idea€in€the€past.Ìà àOn€April€26,€1995,€Dixon€received€a€written€reminder€concerningÏunacceptable€attendance€that€showed€thirteen€unplanned€absences,€and€on€MayÏ31,€1995,€Nike€terminated€Dixonððs€employment€for€poor€performance€and€theÏlong€pattern€of€unexcused€absences.€€On€the€same€day€of€his€termination,€DixonÏreceived€a€letter€from€Nike,€dated€May€16,€1995,€explaining€that€Nike€alreadyÏowned€a€patent€on€the€idea€for€mileage€counters€and€outlining€the€problemsÏwith€such€devices.€€After€his€termination,€Dixon€continued€to€write€and€callÏNike€for€an€explanation€of€why€his€idea€was€rejected.€€Ìà àOn€October€12,€1995,€Nike€sent€Dixon€a€final€letter€trying€to€put€ð ðthisÏmatter€to€rest.ðð€€The€letter€explained€that€ð ðat€the€time€you€submitted€yourÏidea,€there€was€a€change€in€personnel€of€the€ððI€Got€It!ðð€program€and€manyÏsubmissions€more€or€less€ððfell€through€the€cracksðð€and€did€not€receive€anÏacknowledgment.€€For€that,€we€would€like€to€apologize.ðð€€Nike€further€explainedÏits€position€about€Dixonððs€idea:€€ð ðHowever,€at€no€time€has€NIKE€attempted€toÏððtake€your€ideaðð€and€as€Mr.€Potterððs€letter€states,€although€your€idea€is€a€goodÏidea€in€the€abstract,€problems€have€arisen€when€attempts€have€been€made€toÏmake€such€a€device.ðð€€Finally,€the€letter€states€that€the€submission€of€DixonððsÏidea€was€not€connected€with€his€termination.€Ìà àOn€November€3,€1995,€Dixon€filed€a€complaint€against€Nike€alleging€thatÏhe€has€experienced€retaliation€and€harassment€since€the€submission€of€his€ideaÏand€that€€Nike€intentionally€and€unlawfully€terminated€his€employment.€€DixonÏfurther€alleges€that€Nike€is€liable€for€fraud€and€misrepresentation€and€that€NikeÏexercised€bad€faith€in€the€series€of€communications€between€the€parties.€ÏFinally,€Dixon€alleges€that€Nike€is€willfully,€maliciously,€and€intentionallyÏattempting€to€steal€his€idea.€€The€complaint€requests€damages€for€loss€of€theÏstatus€of€his€employment,€loss€of€wages,€and€loss€of€employment€benefits.€ÏDixon€amended€the€complaint€twice€and€added€allegations€of€outrageousÏconduct,€intentional€infliction€of€emotional€distress,€€acquiring€an€interest€in€anÏinvention,€and€unlawful€misappropriation.× ƒ1 ××  ×€€On€December€20,€1995,€Nike€filedÏan€answer€to€the€original€complaint€that€denied€the€material€allegations,€and€onÏMay€6,€1996,€Nike€filed€an€answer€to€the€amended€complaints€denying€theÏadditional€material€allegations.Ìà àOn€May€22,€1996,€Nike€filed€a€motion€for€summary€judgment,€and€onÏJune€28,€1996,€the€trial€court€granted€Nikeððs€motion.€€Dixon€appeals€the€trialÏcourtððs€order€granting€summary€judgment€to€Nike€and€presents€one€issue€forÏreview:€€whether€the€trial€court€properly€granted€summary€judgment€to€Nike€onÍall€of€his€issues.Ìà àA€trial€court€should€grant€a€motion€for€summary€judgment€only€if€theÏmovant€demonstrates€that€there€are€no€genuine€issues€of€material€fact€and€thatÏthe€moving€party€is€entitled€to€judgment€as€a€matter€of€law.€€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.Ï56.03;€€ò òòòByrd€v.€Hallóóó ó,€847€S.W.2d€208,€210€(Tenn.€1993);€òòò òDunn€v.€Hackettó óóó,€833ÏS.W.2d€78,€80€(Tenn.€App.€1992).€€The€party€moving€for€summary€judgmentÏbears€the€burden€of€demonstrating€that€no€genuine€issue€of€material€fact€exists.€òòò òÏByrdó óóó,€847€S.W.2d€at€210.€€On€a€motion€for€summary€judgment,€the€court€mustÏconsider€the€motion€in€the€same€manner€as€a€motion€for€directed€verdict€madeÏat€the€close€of€the€plaintiffððs€proof;€that€is,€ð ðthe€court€must€take€the€strongestÏlegitimate€view€of€the€evidence€in€favor€of€the€nonmoving€party,€allow€allÏreasonable€inferences€in€favor€of€that€party,€and€discard€all€countervailingÏevidence.ðð€òòò ò€Idó óóó.€at€210„11.€€In€òòò òByrdó óóó,€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€stated:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àOnce€it€is€shown€by€the€moving€party€that€there€is€noÏgenuine€issue€of€material€fact,€the€nonmoving€partyÏmust€then€demonstrate,€by€affidavits€or€discoveryÏmaterials,€that€there€is€a€genuine,€material€factÏdispute€to€warrant€a€trial.€€In€this€regard,€Rule€56.05Ïprovides€that€the€nonmoving€party€cannot€simply€relyÏupon€his€pleadings€but€must€set€forth€òòspecific€factsóóÏshowing€that€there€is€a€genuine€issue€of€material€factÏfor€trial.Ì€à@ àÌòòò òÓÓIdó óóó.€at€211€(citations€omitted)€(emphasis€in€original).€€Where€a€genuine€disputeÏexists€as€to€any€material€fact€or€as€to€the€conclusions€to€be€drawn€from€thoseÍfacts,€a€court€must€deny€a€motion€for€summary€judgment.€òòò ò€Id.€€óóó ó(citing€òòò òDunnó óóó,Ï833€S.W.2d€at€80).Ìà àDixon,€acting€òòpro€seóó,€filed€a€complaint€that€in€essence€alleges€fraud,Ïwrongful€termination€and€retaliatory€discharge,€acquiring€an€interest€in€anÏinvention€under€T.C.A.€ðð€47„25„1209€(1996),€unlawful€misappropriation,Ïintentional€infliction€of€emotional€distress,€and€outrageous€conduct.€€PartiesÏwho€choose€to€represent€themselves€are€entitled€to€fair€and€equal€treatment.€Ïòòò òIrvin€v.€City€of€Clarksvilleóóó ó,€767€S.W.2d€649,€652€(Tenn.€App.€1988).€€However,Ïthey€are€not€excused€from€complying€with€applicable€substantive€and€proceduralÏlaw,€and€they€must€follow€the€same€substantive€and€procedural€law€as€theÏrepresented€party.€€òòò òIdóóó ó.€(citations€omitted).€€Ìà àAll€of€Dixonððs€issues€concern€his€idea€for€mileage€counters€that€heÏsubmitted€to€the€ð ðI€Got€It!ðð€program.€€Dixonððs€argument€that€his€idea€isÏdifferent€from€Nikeððs€existing€patent€is€central€to€these€issues.€€Dixon€filed€twoÏaffidavits€in€opposition€to€Nikeððs€motion€for€summary€judgment.× ƒ2 ××  ×€€In€his€firstÏaffidavit,€Dixon€admits€that€ð ðDefendantððs€Patent€No.€4,578,769€does€determineÏthe€speed,€distance€traversed,€elapsed€time,€and€calories€expended€by€a€personÍwhile€running.ðð€€However,€Dixon€argues€that€Nikeððs€patent€is€different€becauseÏit€does€not€mention€an€ð ðelectronic€mileage€counterðð€and€because€the€counter€isÏnot€located€in€the€shoe.€€à àÌà àDixon€has€presented€no€proof€that€Nikeððs€patent€is€different€from€hisÏidea.€€The€record€contains€only€Nikeððs€patent,€dated€March€25,€1986,€whichÏshows€a€radio€transmitter€in€a€shoe€that€sends€a€signal€to€a€device€worn€on€theÏrunnerððs€wrist.€€The€wrist€display€shows€speed,€distance€traversed,€total€distance,Ïand€calories€burned€in€the€ð ðrunning€modeðð€and€shows€the€time€of€day,€date€andÏhas€an€alarm€and€stop€watch€in€the€ð ðwatch€mode.ðð€€There€is€no€genuine€issue€ofÏmaterial€fact€concerning€the€difference€between€Dixonððs€idea€and€Nikeððs€patent.€ÏEven€if€the€patent€is€different,€the€letters€that€Dixon€submitted€as€exhibits€toÏhis€first€affidavit€show€that€the€idea€for€mileage€counters€in€shoes€was€not€newÏto€the€footwear€industry€and€that€Nike€had€investigated€a€similar€idea€in€theÏpast.× ƒ3 ××  ×Ìà àDixonððs€complaint€alleges€fraud€and€misrepresentation€against€Nike.€ÏDixon€asserts€that€Nike€misled€him€concerning€the€status€of€his€idea€and€thatÏNike€fraudulently€procured€an€interest€in€his€idea.€€Nike€argues€that€it€couldÏnot€fraudulently€procure€an€interest€in€an€idea€that€it€already€owned.€€InÏaddition,€Nike€argues€that€Dixon€assigned€any€interest€in€his€idea€to€Nike€whenÍhe€signed€the€pre„printed€idea€submission€form.€€We€agree€with€Nike€thatÏDixon€cannot€maintain€a€claim€for€fraudulent€procurement€of€his€idea€becauseÏNike€already€owned€a€patent€on€the€idea€and€had€already€attempted€toÏimplement€the€idea€before€Dixon€submitted€his€version.Ìà àDixon€also€argues€that€Nike€fraudulently€concealed€the€existence€of€itsÏpatent.€€However,€he€has€presented€no€proof€to€substantiate€this€allegation.€ÏEach€of€the€letters€from€Nike€explains€the€patent€and€the€problems€with€hisÏidea.€€As€a€general€rule,€summary€judgment€is€not€an€appropriate€procedure€forÏthe€disposition€of€a€fraud€claim;€however,€it€is€incumbent€upon€the€partyÏasserting€fraud,€when€confronted€by€a€motion€for€summary€judgment,€toÏproduce€some€competent€and€material€evidence€legally€sufficient€to€supportÏsuch€a€claim.€€òòò òFowler€v.€Happy€Goodman€Familyóóó ó,€575€S.W.2d€496,€499€(Tenn.Ï1978).€€Dixon€has€presented€no€sworn€proof€or€specific€facts€that€give€rise€to€aÏcause€of€action€for€fraud.Ìà àDixonððs€complaint€also€allege€that€Nike€wrongfully€terminated€hisÏemployment€in€order€to€get€the€rights€to€his€idea€and€in€retaliation€because€heÏinquired€about€the€status€of€his€idea.€€In€his€first€affidavit,€Dixon€admits€thatÏhe€was€an€at„will€employee€of€Nike.€€However,€he€argues€that€the€at„will€policyÏbecame€a€part€of€the€conspiracy€to€terminate€his€employment,€which€gave€NikeÏthe€chance€to€appropriate€his€idea.€€He€asserts€that€Nike€caused€him€ð ðhardshipððÍand€that€Nike€fired€him€in€retaliation€for€inquiring€about€the€status€of€his€ideaÏand€for€commenting€on€the€ð ðhardshipðð€he€was€suffering.Ìà àWith€significant€exceptions,€an€employee€or€an€employer€may€terminateÏan€employment„at„will€relationship€at€any€time€with€or€without€cause.€€ò òòòConatserÏv.€Clarksville€Coca„Colaó óóó,€920€S.W.2d€646,€647€(Tenn.€1995).€€€To€prevail€in€aÏrelationship€discharge€case,€the€plaintiff€must€prove€a€clear€violation€of€someÏwell€defined€established€public€policy.€€ò òòòChism€v.€Mid„South€Milling€Company,ÏInc.ó óóó,€762€S.W.2d€552,€556€(Tenn.€1988).€€Dixon€has€failed€to€present€any€proofÏof€the€required€elements.€€He€cannot€rest€upon€the€mere€allegations€in€hisÏpleadings€that€Nike€fired€him€in€retaliation€for€pursuing€his€idea.€€òòò òByrdó óóó,€847ÏS.W.2d€at€211.€€Ìà àIn€his€third€claim,€Dixon€alleges€that€Nike€acquired€an€interest€in€hisÏinvention€in€violation€of€T.C.A.€ðð€47„25„1209€(1996).€€After€Nike€argued€in€itsÏmemorandum€in€support€of€summary€judgment€that€the€statute€did€not€apply,ÏDixon€stated€in€his€second€affidavit,€ð ðI€sincerely,€respectfully€apologize€unto€thisÏHonorable€Court€with€respect€to€my€claim€under€T.C.A.€ðð€47„25„1209.ðð€€ItÏappears€that€this€claim€has€been€withdrawn,€and€notwithstanding€theÏwithdrawal,€we€agree€with€Nike€that€the€statute€does€not€apply€to€the€facts€ofÏthis€case.× ƒ4 ××  ×€€Ìà àDixon€next€asserts€that€Nike€unlawfully€misappropriated€his€idea.€€DixonÏargues€that€he€has€a€claim€of€right€to€the€property€involved€and€that€Nike€isÏappropriating€his€idea€for€its€own€use€without€his€authorization.€€In€his€brief,ÏDixon€stated€that€he€is€trying€to€prove€that€he€submitted€his€idea€under€the€ð ðIÏGot€It!ðð€programððs€guidelines€and€that€Nike€has€acquired€an€interest€in€his€idea.€ÏNike€argues€that€his€idea€for€a€mileage€counter€was€not€for€a€new€product€andÏthat€it€already€owned€a€patent€for€such€a€device.€€The€record€establishes€thatÏDixonððs€idea€was€not€a€new€idea€and€that€Nike€could€not€have€misappropriatedÏan€idea€that€it€already€owned.€Ìà àFinally,€Dixon€asserts€a€claim€of€intentional€infliction€of€emotionalÏdistress€and€outrageous€conduct.€€In€Tennessee,€there€are€three€essentialÏelements€to€a€cause€of€action€for€intentional€infliction€of€emotional€distress:€€1)Ïthe€conduct€complained€of€must€be€intentional€or€reckless;€2)€the€conduct€mustÏbe€so€outrageous€that€it€is€not€tolerated€by€civilized€society;€and€3)€the€conductÏcomplained€of€must€result€in€serious€mental€injury.€€òòò òBain€v.€Wellsóóó ó,€936€S.W.2dÏ618,€622€(Tenn.€1997).€€Dixon€has€not€alleged€a€serious€mental€injury€and€hasÏnot€come€forth€with€any€specific€facts€of€outrageous€conduct.Ìà àIn€his€opposition€to€the€motion€for€summary€judgment,€Dixon€reliedÏsolely€upon€his€own€two€affidavits€and€their€accompanying€exhibits.€€DixonððsÏaffidavits€were€obviously€drafted€in€response€to€Nikeððs€memorandum€of€law€inÍsupport€of€summary€judgment.€€The€affidavits€argue€Dixonððs€case,€but€do€not€setÏforth€specific€facts€that€could€overcome€summary€judgment.€€In€order€to€createÏdisputed€issues€of€material€fact,€supporting€affidavits€must€be€made€on€personalÏknowledge€and€set€forth€facts€that€are€admissible€in€evidence.€€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.Ï56.05;€òòò òPrice€v.€Beckeróóó ó,€812€S.W.2d€597,€598€(Tenn.€App.€1991).Ìà àAccordingly,€the€order€of€the€trial€court€granting€summary€judgment€toÏNike€is€affirmed.€€Costs€of€appeal€are€assessed€against€the€appellant.€ÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà à_________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òW.€FRANK€CRAWFORD,€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àPRESIDING€JUDGE,€W.S.ó óÌÌò òCONCUR:Ìó óÌò ò____________________________________ÌALAN€E.€HIGHERS,€JUDGEó óÌÌò ò____________________________________ÌHOLLY€KIRBY€LILLARD,€JUDGEó óœÔ€5ÔÔ€5Ô