## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it

N os. 08

- 1496 , 08

- 1956 and 08- 1971 G ERHARD V O N D ER R UHR, M AR C V O N D ER R UHR, i nd i vi du al s, a nd S EP T EC H, I NC ., a N ev ada Co r po r at i o n, P la intif fs-A pp ella nts, C ross-A pp ellees, v.

I MMT EC H I NT ERNAT I ONAL, I NC ., D efend a nt-A pp ellee, an d
T. S T EP HE N T H OM PS ON, G ARY C. P AR KS, et a l., D efend a nts-A pp ellees, C ross-A pp ella nts.

A pp ealsfr o m the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Div isi on. No . 03 C5335

—Robert W . G ettleman, Judge
.
A RGUED J AN UA RY 16, 2009

— D ECI DE D J UNE 30, 20092 N os. 08

- 1496, 08

- 1956 and 08- 1971 Befo re B AUER, F L A U M an d W OO D , C ircu it Judges . B AUER, Cir cu i tJudg e . Se ptech, I nc. sued I m m tec h , I n c. f orbr each ofa l i censi ng contr act between the t w o com pani es. S eptech’ s pre si dent, Gerhar d Von d er R uhr, sued I m m tech f orbr eachi ng an opti on co ntra ct that h e h el d to pu rchas e I m m tech sto ck. Von derRuhr al so sued thr ee I m m tech offi cer s, T. S tephen Thom pson, Gary C. Par ks, an d Ri ck L. S o r k i n, f o r to r ti o us l y i nt er f er i ng wi th the opti on co ntra ct. I n rul i ng o n two m otion s in l i m i ne, after briefi ng and an evid en tiary hearin g , the d istri ct cou rt prohibi ted Von der Ruh r fro m prese nti ng l ay op i ni on tes ti m ony about hi s e xpectati on o f Septech’ s pro fi ts f ro m the l i censi ng ag re em ent a nd di sal l ow ed Se ptech’ s l ost pr o fi ts the o r y a l to g ethe rb eca us e i t l ac k ed su ffi ci en t evi denti ar y s up port
. A s t o the s toc k o pti ons, the dist ric t courtr ese rv ed j ud gm en t o n defe nd ants’ m oti on f orj ud gm ent a s a m att ero fl aw ; the j ury f ou n d that I m m tech bre ached th e o pti on co ntra ct with Von der Ruh r and that the i n d ivi dualo ffi ce r s to r ti o us l y i nt er f er ed wi ththe co nt r ac t. The dist ri ct c ourtdeni ed the defe n d an ts ’ r enewed m oti on f or j udg m en t as a matt ero fl aw. Se pte chno w appe al s th e di st r i ctc ou rt ’ s r ul i ngo n the mot i o ns i n l i m i ne a nd the I m m tech offi cer s a pp ea l the deni alo fthei r m oti on o r r en ewe d m o ti o n f o r j udg m en t as a matt er o fl aw. F i ndi ng n o e r r o r, w e a ffi r m.N os. 08

- 1496, 08

- 1956 and 08- 1971 3 I . B AC KGR OUND A. Th e Se ps i s L i c e ns i ngAg r e e me nt G er h ar d V on d er R u h r fou n d ed se ve ra l m ed ica l te c h n ologyco m panie s, i ncl ud i ng I m m tech and Septec h. I m m tech devel oped and pat ented a pharm aceuti cal product ca ll ed m CR P, a m odi fied h um an pro tei n, wh i ch I m m tech hoped c ou ld tr eatthe dise ase se psi s. S eptech c l ai m s that thro ugh an as si gnm ent o fr i ghts f ro m ano th ero fVon der Ruhr ’ s co m p an ie s, i t r ec ei ve d fr o m I m m te cha n e xc l usi ve w or l dw i de l i cense f orthe m CR P patent, a s w el l as th e r i g ht to pur ch as e m CRP f r o m I m m te ch, and the ri ght to the ser vi ces ofDr. Pot em pa, I m m tech’ s Chi ef S ci en ti fi c Of fi ce r a nd the pe r so n who di sc o ve r ed th e m CRP t ec hno l o g y . S ept ec h c l ai m s th ata fte r Vo n de r Ruh r re si gned f ro m I m m tech, Se ptech att em pted to u tiliz e the l i censi ng ag re em ent t o pu rchas e m CR P f ro m I m m tech i n or de r to run cl i ni caltr i al s a nd thatI m m tech di d n o th o n o r th e a g r e e me n t
. S e p t e c h b e l i e v e s th a ti fthe agr eem ent had notbee n br eached, S eptech would have fu rt h er d ev elo p ed an d rea lize d gre at p r o f i t s fro m th is n ew d rug. W hetherS eptech hel d ri ghts to the o ri gi nal l i censi ng ag re em ent a n d wh etherI m m tech bre ached th at a g r e e m en t are both disp ut ed by the pa rties, bu t are not at i ssue here

. Rather, thi s a p p ea l fo cuses on wh ether Se ptech can prove l ostpro fi ts dam age s if ther e was a br ea ch

. Through Von derRuhr’ s l ay opi ni on tes ti m ony, S eptech i ntended to est abl i sh thati fI m m tech had ful fi l l ed i ts obl i gation s, S eptech would have ente re d i nto an ag re em ent with a c or p or ate partner, an undeter m i ned m aj or4 N os. 08

- 1496, 08

- 1956 and 08- 1971 p h ar m ac eu tic al com p an y, th at w ou ld h av e b ee n res p on sib le for the d etails and costs of cond uc ting th e nec essary c l i ni c a l t r i al s a nd wa l k i ngthe p r o du c tthr o ugh the F DA cl ear ance proce ss. Von derRuhr w as to t est i fy that under the t er m s o fthe agr eem ent that would have bee n neg ot iat ed , th e c o rp or at e p ar tn er w ou ld be res p on sib le for all el em en ts a nd c o st s o fmanuf ac tu r i nga nd mar k et i ngthe dr uga nd S ept ec h wo ul d r ec ei ve f ive per ce nto fthe drug’ s t ota l sa l es. Von derRuhr was to te stify that, upon b ein g in tr od u c ed to th e m ar ke t, th is n ew d ru g w ou ld ha ve im m ed iately cap tu red , and f or the n e x t te n yea rs woul d ha ve mai nt aine d, a t l ea stha l fof t he g r o ss r ev en ue ofthe onl y o therdrug to tr eatse psis on the m ar ketat the t i m e, an El i Li l l y pr odu c t cal l ed Xig ri s. Fi nal l y, Se ptech i ntended fo r Von der Ruh r to tes ti fy that S ept ec h’ s l o stpr o fi ts damag es , di sc o unt ed to the i r pr es en t va l ue , t o ta l ed $4 2 m i l l i o n. The di st r i ctc o ur t di d nota l l o w thi s te st i m o ny a nd al so precl ud ed Se ptech’ s l ostpro fi ts theo ry .
B . Vo n d e rRuh r ’ s St o c k Op t i o ns Von der Ruh r hel d seve ra l optio ns to p urchase I m m tech sto ck, o ne o fwh i ch w as an o pti on f or56 ,00 0 sh ar es at $. 15 per sh ar e i ssued M ay 1, 19 91 and to be e xerci sed by M ay 1, 20 01. A ftera ser ies o fst ockspl i ts and rev er se st o cks pl i ts, I m m te chi nf o r m ed Vo n de r Ruh r, a nd I m m tech d ocum ents i nd i cate , thatthe opti on was f or 24,390 sh ares at $.34 pe r share. Th e op tion cou ld be ex erci sed i n w hol e o r i n part
.N os. 08

- 1496, 08

- 1956 and 08- 1971 5

O n app eal , the offic ers cl aim thatt h e c orrec t e xer ci se pric e 1 w as $8, 400, the ori ginal am ount needed to exe rci se the 56, 000 (co n tin u ed ...) V on d er R u h r at te m p te d to ex er c ise th e o p tio n in A pri l 20 01. Toge therwith a check, he s ent a l ett erst ati ng, “Enclo sed pl ea se find a check f or$8 292. 60 to exer ci se 2439 0 o pti ons. ” Thi s co m es out to $.3 4 per shar e. U pon r e c e i v i n g th e r e q u e s t, P a r k s , I mmt e c h ’ s C F O , p r e p a r e d a l et te r t o I m m tech ’s t r an sfera g en t i ns tr uct i ngtha t th e sto ck be i ssued. H owever, thatl ett erwas neverse nt. I ns tead i t w as m arked , “H old p er TST [ T hom p son ] & So rk i n. ” The o ffi cer s cl ai m thatwh en the y r ecei ved Von d er Ruhr ’ s l et te r the y c o ns ul te d wi thI m m te ch ’ s at tor
neys because Von derR u h r had fi l ed a s epara te l aw sui t a gai nst I m m te ch a f ew days bef or e they r ecei ved the r edem pt ion request, r ega rdi ng a diff er ent s et of s ha r e s tha tV o n de r R uh r c l a i med h e h a d n o tr e c e i v e d. Park s i nfo rm ed Thom pson and So rk i n that the cor re ct pri ce was not$. 34 per shar e, but $. 3409 594 per shar e f or a t ota l o f$8 , 316 and r ep or ted thatVon derRuhr’ s che ck w as “te chnic al l y . . . $2 3. 40 shor t. ” Toward the end of Ju n e, P ar ks sent Von der Ruh r a l ett er, wh i ch Par ks cl ai m s was drafted by l ega l co unsel, s ta ti ng tha t Von der Ruhr ’ s r eque st“ f ai ls t o i den ti fy e xa ct l y whi cho pti o ns you ar e int ending to exer ci se” and ask i ng hi m to cl ar i fy. Park s a dm i tte d at t ri althathe knew wh i ch opti ons Von der Ruhr was t ry i ng to exer c i se. Par ks’ l ett erco nti nued that i f Vo n de r Ru hr wa s i nt e nd i ng t o e xe r c i s e the M a y 1 , 1991 o pti on, thatthe p u rc hase pri ce was $8 , 399. 72. Par ks 16 N os. 08

- 1496, 08

- 1956 and 08- 1971

(

. . . c on t i nu e d) 1 sha res, beca u se the sto ck splits w ere a ll pro p o r t i o na l ad justm en t s thatdi d notaff ec tthe s ubs t ant i ve t er m s ofthe opt i on. retu rned Von de r Ru hr’s ch eck an d th e sh ares w ere neve r de l i v e r e d. V o n d e r R u h r n e v e r r e s p o n d e d t o t he re quest f orcl ari fi cati on o r sent anothe r check, but that f act i s, atthi s poi nt, noti m portan t. The j ury f ound that I m m te chb r ea ch ed th e o pti o n c o nt ract by no t i ss ui ng the s to c k and no one appeal s that i ssue. Fo r the purpos es ofthi s a pp ealthen, Von derRuhr d id ever ythi ng nece ssar y t o e xe r c i s e the o pt i o n a nd wa s e nt i t l e d t o r e c ei ve the s hare s. The dis tr i ct c ourtdi d not di sturb the j ury’ s v er d ict that thi s co nsti tuted a bre ach o fthe opti on co ntra ct a nd that th e I m m te cho ffi ce r s to r ti o us lyi nt er f er ed wi ththa t co ntr act.

I I . DI S C US S I ON On app eal, S eptech a rg ues that the di str i ct c ourter re d bypr o hibi tingVo n de r Ruh r ’ s l ayo pi nio n t es ti m o ny a nd Se p te c h ’s los t p ro fits th eo ry . I m m te c h res p on d s t h at it w as properto pro hibit the t est i m ony and theor y b ecause th ey lac ke d fou n d at ion . Th e Im m te c h o ffi cer s cr os s-a p p ea l, cl ai m i ngtha t th e di str i ctc o ur t er r ed byde ny i ng th ei r mot i o ns f o r j udg m en t as a matt ero fl aw, a l l o wi ng them to be perso n ally l i abl e f orthe tor ti ous inter f er ence cl ai m . V on derRuh r a r g ue s th athe pr es en te d s uffi ci en t evi dence to support the j ury’ s v er dict

.N os. 08

- 1496, 08

- 1956 and 08- 1971 7

Septec h arg u es that the dis tr ic t c ourt i m prop erl y evaluated 2 V on d er Ruh r’s prop osed opinion by the s tandard s f or ex pert t e s t i mo n y a n d th a tw e mu s te v a l u a t e th i s i s s u e d e n o v o . We s ee no e v i de n c e th a tth e d i s t r i c tc o u r tc o n fu s e d t h e t wo s t andard s. The court’ s reas oning dem onst rates thati t was ke en l y a ware ofthe d i s t i nc t i on bet weenthe r equi re m en t s f or l ay ver s us e xpe rtopi ni on t es t i m ony. “We r ev i ew [ th e] di st r i ctc o ur t’ s r ul i ng s o n [ th e] mot i o ns i n l i m i ne f o r a n abus e o fdi sc r et i o n” b ec au se “ dec i si o ns regard ing the ad m is s ion and exc lusion of eviden ce are peculi ar l y withi n the com petence ofthe dist ri ct c ourt
. ” Hef t v . M o o re, 3 5 1 F

. 3 d 2 7 8 , 2 8 3

- 8 4 ( 7 th Ci r . 2 0 0 3 ) ( i nt er nal quo t a t i o n s a n d c i t a t i o n s o mi t t e d )

. We r e v i e w t he 2 dist ri ct c ourt ’ s den ial ofthe offi cer s’ m oti ons f orj ud gm en t a s a m at te r of law d e n ov o. C a stella no v. Wa l-M a rt S tore s, Inc. , 373 F.3d 81 7, 81 9 (7 th C ir. 20 04 ). I llin ois l aw gover ns the subst anti ve l ega l i ssues i n thi s di ver si ty ac ti o n.

A. L a yOpi ni o n T e s t i mo ny Se ptech at tem pts a diffi cul t tas k i n thi s ca se: ( 1) to pro ve l o s tp r o fi t s da ma g e s ( 2 ) i n a c o mp l e x ma r k e t( 3 ) fr o m a p rod uc t tha t has nev er been sold (4) w ithou t any exp ert te st im on y. A n d on ap p ea l it is bu r d en ed w ith th e a d d itio n al w eig h t o f (5) p ro vin g t h a t t h e d ist ric t c ou rt ’s d ec isi on o n thi s i ssue w as an abuse o fdi scr eti on. S eptech ar g ue s tha tthe di s t r i c tc o ur ti mpr o pe r l y p r e c l ud e d Von der Ruhr’ s l ay op in i on t est i m ony, wh i ch w oul d have provi ded pro ofo n sev er alel em ents ofi ts l ostpro fi ts8 N os. 08

- 1496, 08

- 1956 and 08- 1971 theo ry . I m m tech re sponds that the di str i ct c ourtwas c or re c t t o p ro h ibit th e la y op in ion te st im on y b ec au s e it w as not gr ounded i n pers onalkno w l edge o r experi ence. Feder alRule o fEvi dence 701 di ctat es that l ay tes ti m ony i n the fo rm o fo pini ons ori nfe re nces [ be] li m ited to th ose o p inions or i nferen ces w hich are ( a) ra ti onal l y base d o n the perce pti on of th e w i tness , ( b) h e l pfult o a c l e a r u nd e r s t a nd i ngo fthe wi t ne ss’ tes ti m ony orthe deter m i nati on o f a f act i n i ssue, and (c ) notbas ed on s ci enti fi c, te chnic al, o r othe r speci al i zed kno w l edge withi n the sco pe ofRule 70 2. The las t r equi re m ent i s i ntended “to el i m i nate the r i sk th at th e re liab ility req u ire m en ts se t f o r th in R u le 7 02 w ill be e vaded thro ugh the si m ple expedie nt o f p ro ffer i ng an ex p ert in lay w itness clothing

. ” Fed

. R

. E vid. 701 ad visory co m m . nn . Inth e re alm of los t p ro fits , l ay op in ion te st im on y is al l owed i n l i m i ted ci rc u m stances where the witness b as es h i s o pini on o n part i cul ar i zed kno w l edge he posse ss es d u e t o h is p os itio n w ith in th e c om p an y. Id

. Fo r e x a mpl e , th e o wn e r o f a n e s t a b l i s h e d b u s i n e s s wi th a docum ented hi sto ryo fpro fi ts m ay tes ti fy t o hi s e xpectati o n o fc o nt i nue d o r e xpa nde d pr o fi ts whentha t o pi ni o n i s bas ed on hi s “kno wl edg e an d pa r ti ci pat i o n i n the day- to- day aff ai rs o f[ hi s] busi ness. ” Id

. ( quoti ng Light ni ng Lub e, Inc . v. Wi t co Corp. , 4 F.3d 11 53 (3d C ir. 19 93 )). Th is is al l owed “o nly b ec au se that tes ti m ony i s t i ed to [ the wit

ne s s ’ ] pe r s o na l k no wl e dg e . . . . ” C o m pa nia A dm inistra do ra deRe cu pe r ac i on deActivo s Adm i ni s t r adora deFo ndosN os. 08

- 1496, 08

- 1956 and 08- 1971 9 de Invers ion Socie dad A n o nim a v. Tit an Int’ l, Inc. , 53 3 F

. 3d 555, 560 (7th C ir. 2008). Von der Ruh r’ s pro pose d testi m ony does not fi t these param ete rs . Rather, he inten d ed t o tes ti fy t o hi s e xpectati on o fm i l l i ons of dol l ar s i n profi ts f ro m a bra nd new d rug, w h ich h a d n ot be en ap p ro ve d by th e F D A , w h ich st ill needed a co rpor ate partner, and f or w hi ch no co m peti ti ve m ar ketan alysi s had be en co nd ucted. I t i s di ffi cul t t o i m ag i ne ho w any o ne i n thi s si tu at i o n c o ul d po ss es s th e necess ar y per sonalkno w l edge t o gi ve a use ful l ay opi ni on ba sed o n hi s per cepti on an d i t i s cl earthatVon der Ruhr di d not hav e s uch knowledge

. Von der Ruh r had no per sonalexper i ence w i th o btai ni ng a cor pora te l i censi ng ag re em ent f ora pharm aceuti calo r tr eat m ent o fany ki nd , had never b ro ught a p h ar m ac eu tic al to m ar ke t, an d h ad n ev er m ad e a p ro fit f r o m a pha r m ac eutical

. S ept ec h h as ut i l i ze d l i ce ns i ng agr eem ents to com m er ci al i ze tw o diagnost i c te sts , o ne to m eas ure bl oo d sugar a n d the othe r to tes t f orr esi du al al cohol

. Because Von der Ruh r’ s p os itio n w i th S eptech gi ves hi m a parti cul ar i zed kno w l edge about how S eptech uti l i zes l i censi ng agre em ents, h e m i ght ha ve been perm i tted to exp lain h ow a l i censi ng m odel i s de s igne d to w ork once a co rpor ate part n er i s f ound. Bu t S eptech nee ded evi dence thata cor pora te partnerwould have been f oun d ; the succes s o fS eptech’ s di agno sti c to ol s di d not gi ve Von der Ruh r any insi ght into w h et h era m aj or pharm aceuti calco m pany w oul d h ave ente re d i nto a l i censi ng agre em ent w i th Septech fo r thi s new se psi s drug. W hen a s k e d ab o uth i s b a s i s f o r b e l i e v i ngtha ta m aj or pharm aceuti calco m pany w oul d have w an te d to tak e10 N os. 08

- 1496, 08

- 1956 and 08- 1971 thi s new drug thr ough the FDA cl ear ance proce ss, Von der Ruh r re pli ed that the dr ug was safe, eff ecti ve, and had a pr o ve n mar ket

. I t i s di spu te d a s to whethe r the dr ug w as known to be saf e and effecti ve, bu t even ifi t was, that d i d not g i ve Von der Ruh r any per sonalexper i ence w i th fi nd i ng a cor pora te partnerf ora new p harm aceuti calthat had n ot b een app ro ved by the F DA

. I t m ay have been possibl e t o fi nd such a partner, but Von d er Ruhr cannot te st i fy t o tha t o uto fhi s per so na l k no wl edg e. Vo n de r Ruh r was c o nfi den t t ha t: “ Yo u c ant al kt o a nybo dy i n the pharm aceuti cal i nd ustr y. They l ove to take technol ogy th atha s adva nc ed to tha t po i nt, abs o l ut el y . ” Ta l k i ng wi ths o m eo ne from the pha r m ac eu ti ca l i ndus tr y who w as kn ow led geabl e about thi s t opi c would have bee n us eful, bu t w as no t offered

. I ns tead , the d istri ct cou rt w as re quir ed to deci de w hetheri t s houl d al l ow Von der Ruh r to tel l the j ury how he b el i eve d the pharm aceu tical ind us try w ou ld h ave res p ond ed to the op p ortuni ty to spear head Se ptech’ s new product. Von der Ruh r al so cl ai m ed to have “ ta lked to a num ber of in ve stm ent b anker s who have ver y g oo d contact s t o th e p h a r ma c e u t i c a l i n d u s t r y w h o h a v e a l wa y s e mphasi zed ‘ bri ng m e a prod u c t that we can t ake to cl i ni cal tr i al s, and w e’ l l es tabl i sh a re l ation sh i p. ’ ” He cl ai m ed to h av e t alk ed w ith on e p ro m in en t fin an c ia l f igu re w h o is w ell k n ow n in t h e p h ar m ac eu tic al in d u st ry w h o t old h im “tha t i fy o u ha ve a pr o ducttha t has s how n sa f ety a nd effi cacy, ther e w i l l be enough cor pora te, potentia l co rpor a t e p a r t n er s w h o w ou ld lov e t o p ar tn er w ith you . . . .” A gai n, thi s doe s no t dem onst ra te personalkno w l edge o f the pharm aceuti cal i nd ustr y or how i t w oul d h av e re-N os. 08

- 1496, 08

- 1956 and 08- 1971 11 sponded to an o ff erto f or m a l i censi ng ag re em ent with S e pt e c h t o b r i ng thi s ne w dr ug t o mar k e t
. No r was Von d er Ru hr q ua lif ie d to testify to how i nv estm en t ban kers w oul d have r esponded to the pros pect ofthi s new pharm aceuti cal

— especi al l y when Von de r Ruh r nevercl ai m ed to have had any co nver sat i ons about this pro du ct. A gai n, Von der Ruh r did not have an y p ar ti cul ar i zed k no wl edg e o fthe mar k etfor a sepsi s tr ea tmento r the com peti ti on i n that m ar ket

. S eptech c l ai m s that: Se ptech al re ady com m er ci al i zed to [ si c] te sts and have [ si c] r eal i zed pro fi ts

— thro ugh a l i censi ng ag re em ent. A gain, this i s M r. Von de r Ru hr’s sp ecial, pa rticulari ze d a nd i nt i m at e k no wl edg e o fhi s co m pan y l i censi ng pro du cts to cor porate partner s f ora profi t. The ref o r e, i t i s unde ni ab l e th atM r . Vo n de r Ruh r ha d pe r so na l a nd r el ev an t k no wl edg e r eg ar di ng th e se psi s m ar k eta nd hi s co m pet i ti o n, unde r st o o d the via b ility o fth e s ep sis te c h n olo gy an d h ad w ellfou n d ed ex p ec ta t i o n s a b ou t t h e p ot en tia l p ro fits it coul d gener ate
. W e se e no c o nne ct i o n b etw ee n S ept ec h’ s su cc es sful d evelop m en t of tw o diagn ostic tests an d Von de r Ru hr’s perso nal kno w l edge o f a co m ple tel y i nd ependent m ar ket

. Fu rthe rm ore, to su p p ort this claim of V on d er Ru hr’s perso nal kno w l edge o fthe sep sis m ar ket, S eptech c i tes on ly to a ser ies of m at er ials th at V on d er R u h r re ad . W h ile expert s a re al l ow ed to gi ve tes ti m ony base d outsi de of thei r perso nal exper i ence oro b se rv ati on, l ay w i tness es ar e n ot . In Lightni ng Lube, 4 F. 3d at 1175 , the busi ness o wnerwas pe r m i tt ed to r el y i n pa r t o n a r epo r t he12 N os. 08

- 1496, 08

- 1956 and 08- 1971
create d w ith th e assistan c e o f an accou nt an t in det erm i ni ng hi s dam age s ca l cul ati on. But hi s t est i m on y was al so base d on his “kno w l edge a nd part i ci pati on i n the dayto- day aff ai rs o fhi s busi ness, ” which had actual l y r eal i zed p ro fits

. Id. at 11 74

- 75

. The Thi r d Ci r cui t affi r m ed the dist ri ct cou rt ’ s co ncl usi on that “ i n prepar i ng a dam age s rep o r t the au th or m ay incorp orate d ocu m en ts th at w ere prepar ed by othe rs , wh i l e s ti l l poss ess i ng th e requi si te perso nal kno w ledge orf oundati on t o re nd erhi s l ay opi ni on a dm i ssibl e under Fe d. R. Evi d. 701. ” Id. at11 75 (qu oting 802 F. Sup p . 1180, 1193 (D.N

. J. 1992)). I n thi s ca se, Von derRuhr had no fi rs t hand kno w l edge ofthe sepsi s m ar ketand w oul d have r el i ed enti re l y o n i nf o r m at i o n h e ha d b ee n to l d orhad re ad. “Thi s i s the k i nd of tes tim on y t ra d itio n ally p ro vid ed by an ex p er t: ‘[I]t c ou ld have been off er ed by any i nd i vi du alw ith speci al i zed know led ge ofthe [ sepsi s] m ar ket

. ’ ” C om pania , 53 3 F

. 3d at 560 ( quoti ng U ni t e d S t at e s v. Conn , 29 7 F

. 3d 5 48 , 55 5 ( 7th Cir. 2002) )

. Von derRuhr di d not hav e a ny per sonal knowle dge o r experi ence to contr ibute. Von der Ruh r al so l acke d suffi ci ent per sonalkno w l edge to tes ti fy that S eptech’ s new drug w oul d have ca ptured fi fty perce nt of the gr oss re venues of Xig ri s and m ai ntai ned th at m ar k et sh ar e f o r th e te n- y ea r l i f e o f th e pat en t. The l ev elo fs pec ul at i o n thi s te st i m o ny r equi r es i s demonstr ate d b y th e f act that Von der Ruh r’ s dam age s ca l cul ati on proj ects captur i ng fi fty perce nt o fthe gr os s sa l es of Xig ri s with n o re gar d to the per centag e o fpre scr ibed sepsi s t re atm ent dos es Se ptech’ s drug w oul d capture. Von derRuh r b el i ev ed tha t o ne do se o fXi g r i s co stthe pa ti en tN os. 08

- 1496, 08

- 1956 and 08- 1971 13

m or e than $10 , 000, but did not c ar e w hat a dose o f S ept ec h’ s dr ug wo u l d h a v e c o st
. The f o l l o wi ng exchange too k pl ace at the e vi denti ar y hea ri ng: Q

. D o yo u h av e a n y p er so n al k n ow led ge of w h at it woul d c o sta pat i en t f o r a si ng l e do sa g e o fmC RP? A

. That w oul d have be en a questi on f or the c or pora te partner
. They s et the pr i ce. Q

. S o y o u d o n ’ tk n o w? A

. W el l, thati s i m m at er i al

. The co rpor ate partner wo u l d s e tth e r e t a i l p r i c e . We w o u l d n ’ t
. We w oul d get a 5 per cent ro yal ty f ee. It i s d i f ficu lt t o u n d er st an d h ow V on d er R u h r w as qu alif i e d to op in e t h at Sep te c h ’s c or p or at e p ar tn er w ou ld have sol d at l eas t $ 100 m i l l i on w or th ( hal f of Xig ri s’ sa l es) ofthi s new drug ea ch ye arwitho ut k n ow ing o r eve n car i ng how m an y d ose s would have bee n adm i ni ste re d and at what co st per dose. W hen ask ed f or the basi s ofhi s fi fty perce nt fi gure , Von der Ru h r g a v e a c o n c i s e , b u tu n s a t i s fy i n ga n s we r : “ T wo r ea so n s, n u m b er on e, th e m ar ke t h as inc re d ible p ot en tia l. EliLi l y [ si c] has j ust s cra tched the surf ace. A nd , num ber tw o, Ibel ieve thatm CR P i s a bet terpro du ct. ” Von der Ruh r nevercl ai m ed t o h ave conducted a r ealm ar ket analys i s f orS eptech’ s new drug. The bas i s f orhi s be l i ef th at Sep te c h h a d d ev elo p ed a b et te r p ro d u c t t h an X igr is i s uncl ear, es peci al l y when Von der Ruhr adm i tte d that he di d no t k no w the pa ti en t r equi r ement s f o r pr escribi ng Xig ri s, t h e contr ai nd i cata ti ons f orpre scr ibi ng Xi gr i s, o r the si de eff ects of Xig ri s ( though he did r em em ber14 N os. 08

- 1496, 08

- 1956 and 08- 1971

W e do not s ugg es t, nor did the dis tr ic t c ourt fin d , that 3 ex p er ts a r e r e q u ir ed to p ro v e l o st p ro fits d a m a g es , see T AS D i st ri buti ng C o. v. C um m i ns Engi ne Co. , 491 F. 3d 625, 634 ( 7th Cir

. 20 07 ) ; we m er el y obs er ve t hatV on d er Ruhr was no tthe app ropriat e agent to i ntroduce thi s evidence. re a di ng a n a r t i c l e i n the Ne w En g l a nd J o ur nal o f M edi ci ne abo uts i de eff ec ts )

. Nei th erdi d Vo n d er Ruh r ex p lain h ow d oc to rs or c on su m er s w ou ld h av e im m ed iate l y r eco gni zed thatS eptech’ s p ro du ct was be tte r than X igr is. B u t m os t im p or ta n tly , ev en if V on d er R u h r c o u ld have furtherdefended his bel i ef s, i t would not have be en thro ug h h i s per so na l k no wl edg e o r pe r ce pti o n. I ns te ad o fqua l i fy i nge xpe r ts o r c o nduc tinga t r ue m ar k eta na l y si s, S ept ec h o ff er ed Vo n de r Ruh r ’ s te st i m o ny f orthe propos i ti on that i fther e i s a $200 m i l l i on perye ar m ar k ettha t i s sh ar ed by two c o m pan i es a nd o ne c om p an y h as a “b et te r p ro d u c t,” t h a t c om p an y w ill gen erate at least $10 0 m il li on p er year. 3 F in a lly , Von de r Ru hr d em ons trated at the ev iden tiary he a r i ngtha the h a d n o k no wl e dg e , p e r s o na l o r s pe c i a l i z e d, as to wha t o th erpo te nt i als eps i s tr ea tment s wer e i n the devel opm entalpi pel i ne, o r how thei r i ntro du cti on m igh t a ffec t t h e s ep sis tre at m en t m ar ke t
. N eit h er d id hi s a na l y s i s c o ns i de r h o w El i Li l l y mi g hth a v e r e s po nd ed to the intro du cti on o fS eptech’ s drug. N one ofthe case s S eptech cites to i n i ts bri efhel p i ts ca us e. I n C om pania , 53 3 F

. 3d at 560-6 1, the l ay w i tness w as not perm i tte d to prese nt a val uati on e sti m ate ev en th ou gh he h ad exte ns ive exp erience i n th e ind us t ryN os. 08

- 1496, 08

- 1956 and 08- 1971 15 b ec au se th e p ro p os ed te st i m o n y w as n ot ba se d on h is r el at i o ns hi p wi ththe pa r ti cul arg o o ds i n que st io n. The bus i ne ss o wneri n L ighte ning Lube, 4 F. 3d at 1174

- 75, had r ea l i ze d a ctua l pr o fi ts fr o m tha t busines s i n the r el ev an t i ndus tr y , g i vi ng hi m a ba si s f o r hi s ex pec ta ti o n o fco nt i nue d a nd e xpa nde d pr o fi ts
. I n Tam pa B a y S hipb ui l di ng & Rep a i rC o . v . C e d a rS h ip p i n gC o. , 3 20 F. 3d 1213 , 12 16- 23 ( 11 th Ci r . 20 03 ) , th e l ay wi tn es se s wer e i nv o l ved in the d et ails o fr e p air in g t h e s h ip in d isp u te an d ba se d th eir tes ti m ony on “part i cul ar i zed knowle dge gar nered fr om y ea r s o fe xpe r i en ce wi th i n the fi el d. ” I n In reLTV St e e l Co. , 285 B.R . 2 59 , 264 ( Bankr. N

. D. Ohio 2002 ) , i t was undispu ted thatthe propos ed tes ti m ony w as “r ati onal l y b ase d on the per cepti on o fthe w i tness ” a ccor d in g to Rule 701. F i na l l y , the r ul e i n R. I
. S pi e c eS al e s Co

. v . Ba n k One, N. A. , N o. 1: 03- CV

- 175- TS, 20 05 W L 3 00 5484 ( N

. D. I nd

. N ov. 9, 2005 ) , go es aga i nst per m i tti ng Von der R uhr’ s t est i m ony. I n that case , t h e courtst ate d that a l ay w i tness with “s pec i alk no wl edg e o fthe bus i ne ss a nd i ts o per at i o ns m ay al so tes ti fy a s t o the f acts o fthe busi ne ss that un d erli e profit exp ecta t ions” bu t “m ay not m ake inferences f ro m the d ata .
. . . ” Id

. a t* 1

. T he c o ur ta l l o we d a busi ness ow n er to cal cul ate hi s l ostpro fi ts base d on “actual past per f or m ance. ” Id . a t *2. Fu rt h er m or e, Light i ng Lubea nd Tam pa Baypre sented an opposi te proce du ra l p ositi on from this case be cau se th e a p p e llate cou rts w ere re vi ew i ng the di str i ct c ourt s’ d eci si ons to al l ow th e t es tim o ny f or a n abus e o fdi sc r et i o n. Her e we r ev i ew the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s deci si on t o prec l udethe tes ti m ony f oran ab us e o fdi sc r et i o n. W e fi nd no such abuse

.16 N os. 08

- 1496, 08

- 1956 and 08- 1971 B. LostPro f i t s D am age s A fter Von der Ruh r’ s l ay opi ni on tes ti m ony is rej ecte d as i m proper, S eptech has no one to tes ti fy, am ong othe r th ings, that it w ou ld h ave obt ained a corpora te p artn er, whatthe t er m s o fthe c o r po r at e l i ce ns i nga g r ee m en t w oul d have be en, o r how m uch ofthe m ar ketthi s new d ru g w ou ld h av e c ap tu re d an d m ain ta in ed

. T h er efo re , i t cannot prove i ts enti tle m en t t o l ostpro fi ts dam age s. S ept ec h a dm i ts a s m uch, e xplaining tha t “the c o ur t ex cl ude d the t es ti m o ny o fM r . Vo n Ru hr[ si c] a nd c o ns eque nti al l y the l ostpro fi t ca l cul ati on o fSep te ch, I nc. ” Because Sep tech ’s l ost p rofi ts th eory d ep en d ed on Von d er Ru hr’s tes ti m ony, we need not disc uss I l l i noi s’ new busi ness ru le, TA S Dis t r i b ut i ng, 4 91 F .3d at63 3- 34, o r the r equi re m ent that apl ai n ti ffes tabl i sh l ostpro fi ts w i th “r easo n able cer tai nty, ” i d. at63 1, ei thero fwh i ch w ou ld have l i kel y pr ecl ud ed Se ptech’ s l ostpro fi ts theo ry .
C. Tor t i ous I nter f er ence w i t h Con t r act Thom pson, P arks, and So rk i n ar gue that there was i nsuffi c ien t e vi dence f orthe j ury to fi nd ag ai nst them perso nal l y a nd thatthe dist ri ct c ourtsho uld have gr anted the i r m oti on o r re new ed m oti on f orj ud gm ent a s a m atter of l a w . V o n d e r Ru hr argu es th at th e j ury h eard s u ffi c i e n te v i d e n c e t o j u s t i fy i t s v e r d i c t
. We r e v i e w a denia l o fa m oti on f or j ud gm ent as a m att ero fl aw de nov o, “exam i ni ng the r eco rd as a w hole t o deter m i ne wh ether th e e vid en c e p re se n te d , com b in ed w ith all rea so n ab le i nfer ence s per m i ss ibl y dr awn the r efr o m , was s uffi ci en t t o s u p p or t t h e jur y’s ve rd ict .” Wal ke rv. Bd. of Rege nt s ofN os. 08

- 1496, 08

- 1956 and 08- 1971 17 the U niv

. o

f Wis. System , 41 0 F

. 3d 387, 39 3 ( 7th Ci r. 20 05) ( quoti ng M il lbrookv. IB P, Inc. , 280 F.3d 116 9, 1173 ( 7th Cir. 2002 ) )

. I n m aki n g thi s dete rm i nati on, we are m i nd ful of the f act that “[ c] re dibi l i ty deter m i nati ons, the w ei ghi ng o f the evid ence, and the draw i ng o fl egi ti m ate i nfe re nces fro m th e f a c t s a re j u ry fu n c tio n s, n ot th os e o f a j u d ge .” R ee ves v. Sanders on P lu m bi n g P roducts, Inc. , 53 0 U.S

. 13 3, 150- 51 ( 2000 ) ( quoti ng A nders on v . L ibe rty Lobby, Inc. , 47 7 U .S. 24 2, 2 5 5 ( 1 98 6)). T h er efo re , w e “ m u st d isr eg ar d all evi dence f avo rabl e t o the [ offi cer s] thatthe j u ry [ w as] not re quir ed to bel i eve . ” R eeves , 53 0 U .S

. at 151. The j ury’s ve r di ctmusts ta nd un l es s th e o ffi ce r s “c ans how th at‘ no ra ti onalj ury coul d have br ought i n a v er dict ag ai nst [ them ]

. ’ ” Wo o dw ar d v

. Cor r e ct i onal M e di ca l Se r vi ce s of Il l. , Inc. , 368 F. 3d 917, 926 (7th Cir

. 2004) ( quoti ng E. E. O. C. v. G -K-G, Inc. , 39 F. 3d 740, 745 (7th Cir. 1994)). There i s no d isp u te thatthe opti on co ntra ct was bre ached. N ei therar e the el em ents ofto rt i ous inter f er ence at i ssue. The o nl y iss u e on appeal i s whether i t was properto al l ow the j ury to i m po se p ersonall i abi l i ty on T h om p so n, P ar ks , an d So rk in . C or p or at e o ffice rs n or m ally enj oy prot ecti on fro m per sonall i abi l i ty f orac ts they c om m it on b eh alf of th e c or p or at ion

. Se eGe orgeA. Fu l l e rCo. v. Chi cago Col l egeof O s t e opat hi c M e di ci ne, 7 19 F. 2d 1326 , 1 33 3 (7th Ci r. 19 83) ( disc ussi ng I l l i noi s l aw )

. To g et ar ound thi s qual i fi ed pri vi l ege i n a t or ti ous inter f er ence cl ai m i n I l l i no i s, a pl aint i ffmust“ es tabl ish th atthe offic er s in d u c ed th e b re ac h t o fu rt h er th eir p er so n al g oa ls or to inju re th e o th er p ar ty t o th e c on tr ac t, andact ed contr ar y t o the b esti nter esto fthe cor pora ti on. ” Ge orgeA. Ful l e rCo. , 719 F.2d at 133 3 (ci tations om itted ).18 N os. 08

- 1496, 08

- 1956 and 08- 1971

Parks di d s e nd Von de r Ruh r a l e t t e r i n M a r c h of2 0 00 4 s t at i ng thatthe t ot al s tri ke pr i c e ofthe opt i on was $8 , 31 6, but itdid not speci fy a price per s hare. Furtherm o re, thi s evidence d oe s no t pr eclu d e the jury fro m fin d ing ag ain st the officers; t he j ury w as notr equi re d t o be pe rs uade d by on e doc um en t over another. Pa r k s se ntVo n de r Ruh r a l et te r i n 1 99 9 statin gtha t th e pri ce pershar e f orhi s o pti ons afterthe sto ck spl i ts w as $. 34. I m m tech docum en ts fr om Decem ber19 98 and October20 00 al so i nd i cate thatthe properp rice was $. 34 p ershar e. A dd i ti onal l y, ano therm aj orI m m tech shar e-

4 hol der, Dr. A nd er son, hel d the s am e s toc k o pti on a nd was ab l e to ex er ci se i t at $. 34 per sh ar e. Ye t when Vo n de r Ruh r tried to ex ercise his opt ions at $.34 per sh are

— a pri ce I m m tech tol d him was proper

— his effor ts w ere hi nd er ed and he w as gi ven a n ew p ri ce. T hi s sud den acute sensi ti vi ty to detai l w h en V on derRuhr tr i ed to exer ci se hi s o pti o ns c o ul d ha ve caus ed th e j ur y t o b el i ev e th atthe officers w ere intereste d i n h arassin g Von de r Ru hr. P ar ks ob vio u sly be liev ed th at V on d er R u h r va lid ly exer ci sed hi s o pti ons bec au se , upon re cei vi ng Von der R uh r ’s requ est, he qu ickly d rafted a l etter to Im m tech ’s tr ansfer age nt author i zi ng the re l eas e of the sh ar es . Yet Tho m pso n a nd S o r k i n s o m eh o w i ns tr uct ed thatthe l ett ershou ld not b e s ent a nd i t was m ar ked “Hol d per TS T & S o r k i n. ” The j ur y co ul d ha ve f o und th ese acti o ns suspi ci ous. Th e j u ry al so coul d have f ound ittr oubl i ng tha t, al thou gh P ar ks adm i tte d at t ri althathe knew wh i chN os. 08

- 1496, 08

- 1956 and 08- 1971 19 opti ons Von der Ruh r w as att em pti ng to exer ci se, Par ks se nt V o n d e r R u h r a l e t t e r s t a t i n g th a t V o n d e r Ruh r f ai l ed “t o i den ti fy e xa ct l y whi cho pt i o n s [ he was ] i nt en di ng to e xe r ci se . ” The j ur y c o ul d ha ve fou nd i t f o o l i sha nd contr ar y t o I m m tech’ s be st i nter estto r i sk bre ach ing a contr act w i th Von derRuhr be cause, as Par ks re port ed to T h om p so n an d Sor kin , “ [t]e c h n ica lly, h e is $2 3.4 0 s h or t.” Fi nd i ng tha t the o ffi cer s nee dle ssl y b re ach ed the opti on contr act ove r $23 .40 , the j ury coul d have be l i eve d that the o ffi cer s a cted f orvi nd i cti ve re aso ns. The j ury’ s co nc ern that the o ffi cer s were m oti vate d by a desi re to inju re Von derRuhr m i ght ha ve been hei ghtened by the f act th at the o pti ons coul d have be en ex e r c ise d in w h ole or in p ar t. T h om p so n te st ified th at it w oul d not hav e be en appro p ria te to i ssue onl y s om e o f the s hare s be cause Von der Ruh r’ s le tt eri nd i cate d that h e w an te d a ce rt ain n u m b er of sh ar es for a c er ta in am ount o f m oney and hi s fi gure s di d not a l i gn. Of cour se, the j u ryco uld have f ound that the fi gure s di d al i gn because the opti ons shoul d have be en honor ed at $. 34 per shar e. Or the j ury coul d have co n c lu d ed thati fper sonal ani m us w as not i nvol ved, the officers would have at l eas t del i ver ed the num bero fshar es to w hi ch they bel i eve d Von der Ruhr wa s en ti tl ed, si nce Par ks knew w hi ch se t of opti ons Von der Ruh r w as att em pti ng to exer ci se. Th e j ur y a l s o k ne w a b o ut the hi s t o r y b e t we e n Von der Ruhra nd I m m te ch

. Vo n de r Ruh r f o unde d Im m te ch, b ut resigned as a b oard m em ber an d Ch airm an a few years be f o r e th i s at te m pt to e xe r ci se h is opti o ns b ec au se he20 N os. 08

- 1496, 08

- 1956 and 08- 1971 disa pp ro ved ofcer tai n ste ps the com pany w as tak i ng to p re p ar e fo r an init ial p u b lic off er in g. V on d er R u h r to ld T h om pson thathe doubte d the wisdom o fso m e o f I m m tech’ s fi nanci ng deci si ons and expresse d concer n that th e fi na nc i ng w as m o vi ngt o o s l o wl y . Vo n de r Ruh r i nf o r m ed Tho m pso n tha t h e w as r es i g ni ngb ec au se , a s he m en ti o ne d o n s ev eral o cc as i o ns , he o ppo se d r equi r i ng cer tai n shar ehol ders to si gn l ock

- up agr eem ents, pre venti n gth e m fr o m s e l l i n gth e i r s t o c kf o r a p e r i o d o ft i me a ft e r the I PO

. Vo n de r Ruhr’s refus alt o s i g n the l o ck

- up a g r ee m en t prom pted So rk i n to wri te a l ett erto T h om pson i n M ar ch of19 99 “dem anding I m m tech to re sci nd allo fM r. Von der Ruh r ’ s o pt i o ns a nd wa r r a nt s f o r c a us e . ” Al s o r e l a t ed to the c onte nti ous loc k- up ag re em ent, Par ks w ro te a l ett er to Sorkin i n O ctob er of 2000 doc um en ting V on d er Ru hr’s shar es and outst an ding opti ons, i n w hi ch Par ks sta ted ab o utthe do cument: “ F r an k l y i t ta k es a l o t o fthe wi nd ou t o f G er h ar d ’s s ails .” Von der Ruh r and I m m tech w er e in a c tive co nfl i ct o ver a di ff er en t se t o fs to cko pti o ns a t th e ti m e V on d er Ruh r att em pted to exer ci se the o pti ons at i ssue in this cas e. Von de r R uh r fi l e d a l a ws ui ta g a i ns tI mm t e c h a fe w days bef or e i t r ecei ved hi s r equest to exer ci se the curr ent s et o fo pti o ns . Al so a r o und the time tha t Vo n de r Ruh r at te m pte d t o exerc i se the s ha r es a t i ss ue i n thi s ca se , he co m pl aine d t o Tho m pso n abo utI m m te ch ’ s ta x t re at m en t ofso m e of Von der Ruh r’ s pri oro pti ons. The tr i alexhibi ts thor oughl y d oc u m ent a hi sto ryo fte nsi on a nd di sag re em e n t b e t we e n V o n d e r R u h r a n d S o r k i n, P a r k s , a ndN os. 08

- 1496, 08

- 1956 and 08- 1971 21 T h om p so n . Th e jur y w as e n t i t l ed to co n sid er th e o ffic e r s ’ a c t i o n s i n l i g h to fth e b r o a d e r c o n t e x to fth e u n c o mf o r tabl e r el at i o ns hi p b etwee n Vo n de r Ruh r a nd the I m m tech offi cer s. The offi cer s cl ai m thattheysi m plyact ed acco rdi ng to adv i ce fr o m I m m te ch ’ s attorne y s, b utf o l l o wi ngthe ad vic e o f an a tt or n ey is n ot an ab so lu te sh ield from liab ili ty. Fur ther m or e, no att or n ey s test i fi ed orwere nam ed at tr ial; th e jur y w as free to d isb e l i e v e t h e o ffice rs ’ cla im th at they r el i ed on a tto rney s. Fo r exam ple , Par ks’ l ett er to th e tr an sfera g en t was mar k ed, “ H o l d pe r TS T & S o r k i n. ” I t di d no t m en ti o n a ny a dvi ce o fc o uns el

. The re portPar ks prepar ed f orThom pson and al so s ent t o So rk i n noti fyi ng the m o fthe re cal cul ate d pri ce per sh ar e, st at ed ab o ut th e di spu te d o pti o n: “I am holdi ng per youri nstr ucti ons. ” Agai n, this g ives no i nd i cati on thatthe o ffi ce r s wer e ac tingo n the a dvi ce o fthe i r a ttorneys. A l ter nati vely , i fthe offi cer s di d sol i ci t a dvic e fr o m c o uns el, tha t adv i ce was o fque st i o nabl e va l ue bec au se it r esu lted in a breac h o f c o nt ract. Th e j ury coul d have f ound th at t h e offi cer s would nothave f ol l owed such a dvic e i ftheywere not m ot ivated by d isda in for V on d er Ru hr. T h e o ffice rs p oin t t o ot h er ev id en c e t h at su p p or ts th eir assert ion tha t the y acted i nn ocen tly and that they w ere n ec e s s a r i l y p ro c ee d in g d elib er at ely an d ca u tio u sly be ca us e o fthe hi st o r y b etween Vonde r Ruh r a nd Im m te c h . C er ta in ly th er e is ev id en c e t h at su p p or ts th is concl usi on and i t m ay be tr ue. Bu t that i s no t o ur deci si on to m ake

. The l aw r eq uir es that w e s i m plyas k whether22 N os. 08

- 1496, 08

- 1956 and 08- 1971 th er e was s uffi ci en t ev i d en ce pr es en te d t o s uppo r t th e j u ry ’s v er d ict

. Wa lk er, 4 1 0 F

. 3 d a t 3 9 3

. T h e r e wa s. The j ury’ s v er dictwas not i rr ati onaland w e w i l l n ot disturb i t. See Wo o dw a rd, 36 8 F

. 3d at 926.

I I I . C ONC L US I ON F o r the r e a s o ns di s c us s e d ab o v e , we A FFIRM the rul i ngs ofthe dist ri ct c ourt
.

6- 30- 09