the first is that the district court's opinion did nine pre judgment interest should be reversed there was no basis let alone a concrete basis for the district court's holding that the jury awarded pre judgment interest the words pre judgment interest were never uttered during the trial titan's expert provided no testimony on the issue of prejudgment interest prejudgment interest was not referenced on the verdict form the district court pointed to one routine jury instruction for its finding which was that quote damages should be assessed from the date of the misappropriation or unfair use through the verdict unquote that instruction does not mention pre judgment interest as this court held in the grilling or case there is nothing in that obstruction that one could reasonably believe would lead the jury to engage in quote complicated computations of interest the verdict itself provides no indication that the jury considered pre judgment interest  the the verdict was not a large amount the verdict what the jury did was it cut in half the lower range of titan's experts damages number titan's expert did not calculate an interest component what tidings expert did was to figure out the time that cambridge saved by misappropriating titans trade secrets concerning design of three manufacturing processes it was a fixed amount the expert did not gross that figure through the time of trial that was avoided development costs that was the basis for the damages right that's correct now how does the doctor's deprivation of that to make a party hold you need pre judgment interest usually in at least in connecticut in the prejudgment interests situation it's you've been denied something for a while which was of value to you and you would have been able to invest it or gain some value from that during the period it was the night how is that measure of damages in this case relevant to that thought behind pre judgment interest to make you home for that period of time after it happened well i think you first have to start in the analysis that the jury found that cambridge misappropriated tied into property and when they took they took the designs these essentially misappropriate the designs for these manufacturing processes and used those they hit the ground faster than they otherwise would have at the time they started to use those trade secrets which in february of two thousand and eleven at the time they say they by law they owe to tighten money so as they utilize these trade secrets what is the damage is a word make you cool for that because they got the benefit of the trade secrets and they owe did money for it to tighten at the time they misappropriated the trade secrets but but the and so the so the damages were incurred as they avoided costs but they didn't avoid costs all the way up until the time of the trial so they were they owed money as they avoided costs because they were misappropriate in the design specifications but that ended before the trial they should have paid money to titan as soon as they avoided the cost as soon as they misappropriate the trade secrets they did not we had to go through a trial get a verdict and get a judgment they should have paid interest all the way up through the time of the verdict to compensate tide for the damages is zero chance this jury calculated pre judgment interest they didn't know what an interest rate was they didn't know they were supposed to calculate prejudgment interest titans expert simply calculated the difference between what it should have taken care bridge to come up with his manufacturing processes over a number of months and the time it actually took to come up with the delta it was a fixed amount it wasn't grossed up until the time of the trial and in fact what the jury did was cut in half the lower range of titan's experts damages analysis so i think there's zero chance this jury actually took into consideration the concept to prejudge interest and i think record that tired is entitled to an award in terms of the day i think it's appropriate to re man to the district court to set the date i'd like to address one other issue which is  avoided cost as a measure of damages here where the jury found that cambridge misappropriated tydings design specifications for manufacturing process of what it cost were legally proper and the most appropriate measure of damages and i want to start with the restatement of our new york law does apply what new york cases would cost as appropriate measure damages for your claims of misappropriation and unfair competition so we could not in either could cambridge find a new york case right on point that says in this circumstance one gets avoided cost but the new york courts follow the restatement of unfair competition and i'll cite to you the winner case the case from the appellate division first partment to forty one eighty second one fourteen at one twenty three and one in twenty four and and if you look at the language of the restatement of unfair competition third it states that courts have recognized at least four methods of measuring damages in trade secret cases in one of those is called in one of those measures quote the savings to the defendant is attributable to the use of the trade secret this method compares the cost to the defendant of achieving the same result within without the improper use of the trade secret in awards the difference to the plaintiff in common and half of that unfair competition restatement provides if the benefit derived by the defendant consists primarily of cost savings such as when the trade secret is a more efficient method of production the quote standard of comparison unquote measure that determines relief based on the savings achieved through the use of the trade secret may be the most appropriate that's what the expert did in this case and that was the basis for damages and i think the court in the matter received case correct but it but the dates restate indeed it does but there's the every circuit that has looked at this issue has found that avoided cost or work the board case from the ninth circuit the worn case from the third circuit which held quote a distinction between profits and savings is wholly without merit where the thing appropriated or infringed is a process which is the case here rather than a manufactured article the profits are simply measured by the savings using the standard of comparison computation so this is widely done it's widely adopted particularly when when a case deals with a manufacturing process such as this case the primary benefit to cambridge and defendants that are similarly situated is that they save time in time is money therefore it's appropriate to calculate the savings another way of looking at profits that cambridge profited they hit the effectively profit by the time savings in misappropriating these designs by getting this many months of head start it's a form of profits or it's a form of losses it's really it's a semantic issue but i don't think the semantics are relevant like unjust enrichment it is a form of unjust enrichment yes  my time is up unless you have any other thank you very much  like mr coleman said to the time of the verdict but here the measure of damage which they sought which is a proxy for for i guess some sort of losses or other other profits was the avoided costs every avoided cost you have saved up until the date of the verdict and that's what they got they got full compensatory damages now the cases don't say that you need to concrete proof that interest was awarded the cases so you need proof that you've been fully compensated and if you haven't been fully compensated then you get interest but if you have been fully compensated like them your case in the first department then that's it any award on top of full compensation through the date of the verdict would be by definition either a recovery or when full or some sort of punitive measure which which be a period of time that's covered on the pre judgment interest i guess theoretically there could be let me first say however that it's not necessarily the case that avoided cost ends when you when you push the button because there's a lot of tweaking that goes into these these machiner but there was no proof at trial as to avoid a cost ending at a certain point in time the case that they put on was through their experts these are the avoided costs through the date of the trial and that's and that's where they got now  the plaintiff ceased operations so it didn't have any losses that could demonstrate and the plaintiff didn't really fully commercialised the the item so there was a question as to should we use the losses which may not be enough should be used the profits which may not be an offshoot in combination and judge should not said the measure of damages in new york for in misappropriation case are the plaintiffs losses the defendant's profits and if failing that if there's not enough proof for either circuit and judge sheindlin and link up if you can't prove the traditional measures of damages which are concrete because they are designed to compensate you for the loss you sustained so the first thing we do is we look at what were your losses did you have a new law sales if that's difficult we look at what the plaintiffs what defending against what profits did you have will award those profits ok no case no case in new york or the second circuit or elsewhere as far as we've been able to see has allowed  below based its decision to go to go this route and accept this this path because she found that dr vidual their expert testified that it was the most appropriate measure of damages in this case because he did not have access it did he did have access to all the data we produced every single invoice every purchase order every single piece of information every customer that c s s ever sold a seal to and they had they had all that information  didn't want to prove damages there's evidence in the record that they started to compute those damages but it does do so for two reasons one the number would been much smaller than the multi million dollar avoided cost measure of damages and secondly if they put  the jury was having a difficulty with injury they said what is injury is sent a note back at the end of the trial saying what is injury time works what that means because it was one count would begin to recover it was a conspiracy count and it separately included as an element of the claim requirement to prove injury and injury said what does that mean so the court said that means injury means that you project that there was approximately cause injury and then referred them to avoid a cost as the measure of damages and we think that that c these grounds to that causation charge at the time but once the jury came back and said what does injury mean we asked the court to give them a choice that says injury means anti competitive injury some financial injury that they have to show before they can go between view voided costs or the misappropriation and their injury there are two cases a year are where we discuss how you cannot assume injury you cannot assume damages years ago with which was followed later by the conway case and the suit debates here seems to be is this conway or is this genteel where in conway the jury came back with an award of three hundred fifty seven thousand dollars for the damages and and prosecution claim that are under state law and the question is when the jury says we want to give more how do you how do you deal with that where there's one injury and the jury's asked do you want to give more th does not duplicate the amount that you have already awarded correct now in this case the jury verdict form as correct but but in this case it's automatically duplications the same way in conway the court figured out that the way they calculated the damages three fifty seven for the breach of contract and three fifty seven for the negligence case it had to be the same number so to hear the one point three has to be the same number because the measure of damages for each claim was avoided costs so it's impossible that they awarded different amounts and that it was not the duplicative injury that is not subject to any dispute the only question is  what do you do after you realized the jury made a mistake now the judge in her in her decision post trial she said well even if they duplicated it's clear to me from their body language and their response to my question that they meant to award three point nine million so i'm going to give three point nine million on a trade secret claim which is the most difficult to prove and i'm going to notify the jury's verdict on the unfair competition unjust enrichment claim we feel that the court had no had no authority to do that and it was speculat because there is evidence in the record to show that the damages were one point three while these machines cost four hundred fifty thousand dollars a brand new machine with labor cost forty fifty thousand dollars like mr goldman said we took what we made three machines we have three machines for fifty times raise but one one point three five joy i could easily said one point three i want to give three times but we can't do it as conway says it doesn't matter regardless of the jury's intentions if there's only one injury  it before trial after close of evidence raised it waived it there were there were three at least three different instructions on proximate cause they're in the record want just for one example quote the first type compensatory damages are intended to compensate the plaintiff for any injury proximately caused by a defendant's conduct and there are at least two other specific instructions on proximate cause on this issue of duplicative damages the verdict form said duplicate damages the jury charge said don't duplicate damages the judge specifically pulled the jury after the verger said did you do play damages in the form and said no we meant to award three point nine million dollars this case is really no different than that in do craft case s hundred five where the court said it's equally rational to believe the jury found that the plaintiff suffered three point two five million dollars of damages and merely allocated that amount between the two different causes of action the standard is if there's any possibility of non duplicative award that is enough to sustain a jury verdict finally on the issue of what it cost it was very difficult to prove tides lost profits because it's always difficult to trace a group case cambridge is a start of determining damages well it states that it that if the trade secret is if the if the benefit derived by defendant consists primarily of cost savings which is in this case such when the trade secret is a more efficient method of production which is this case the standard of comparison measure that determines relief based on the savings achieved through the use of the trade secret may be the most appropriate it was the most appropriate here that's from the restatement of unfair competition new york follows the restatement of unfair competition so i don't think there's any question that the court of appeals would likewise follow that in this case and it's also but i think the court of appeals would also look to the other circuits which uniformly held as an appropriate measure of damages particularly when the issue is a manufacturing process when the principle benefit is savings time savings a start up that save time time is money that's why it's a part it's not appropriate in every case but in this case it was most appropriate for the best data point for us in the term in what the new york court of appeals would do b c correct you very much