02 Micro International Ltd. v. Monolithic Power System, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that exclusion of expert testimony was warranted where the “jury was then left without sufficient evidence, or a reasonable basis, to determine the unjust enrichment damages” because there was no basis for the jury to apportion damages among the trade secrets
• holding damages expert testimony was “useless to the jury” because it included an estimation of the total worth of several trade secrets but the jury found that only some had been misappropriated
• granting plaintiff a royalty when 22 it established the defendant misappropriated some of its secrets but proved “[n]either unjust 23 enrichment nor damages”
• finding use includes “internal experimentation with trade secret information” and [e]mploying the confidential information in manufacturing, production, research[, and] development.”
• rejecting expert damages testimony that calculated damages “based on an assumption that all of the trade secrets were misappropriated” when the jury found that only some of the trade secrets were misappropriated
• finding defendant entitled to judgment as matter of law on 9 claim for unjust enrichment, where plaintiff failed to offer evidence that could have 10 \provide[d] a reasonable basis for the jury to apportion\ amount of benefit attributable to 11 misappropriation

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).