The Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s judgment that reduced unjust enrichment damages to zero after excluding the jury’s ability to award such damages. The appellate court held that a plaintiff has an express choice to seek unjust enrichment damages as a remedy for trade secret misappropriation. The court also reinstated the jury’s full award on a breach of contract claim, finding the jury properly relied on a damages basis supported by the parties’ licensing history. Additionally, the court affirmed the denial of judgment as a matter of law regarding the knowledge required for trade secret liability. The case involved proprietary vehicle configuration software and alleged misappropriation of interdependent trade secrets under a services agreement that ended in 2014.
"Indeed, the Russo court explicitly held that... 'a plaintiff has the express choice of seeking unjust enrichment damages to remedy trade secret misappropriation...'"
"The Federal Circuit also reinstated the jury verdict's full award on Versata's breach of contract claim after finding that the jury properly relied on a damages basis established via the parties' licensing history, and affirmed the district court's denial of JMOL to Ford on the knowledge required for trade secret liability."
"Before trial, the district court excluded testimony from Versata's damages expert primarily for applying a speculative damages model inappropriate for the case for measuring Ford's enrichment 'rather than Ford's unjust enrichment.' Versata responded by submitting reasonable royalty models following Georgia-Pacific factors reflecting a 2011 hypothetical negotiation between the parties to the asserted trade s"
Read at IPWatchdog.com | Patents & Intellectual Property Law
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]