Opinion ID: 4587904
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: conclusion

Text: The jury heard plenty of evidence that TCS stole Epic’s confidential information and incorporated it into a compara‐ tive‐analysis spreadsheet. And, drawing all inferences in fa‐ vor of Epic, the jury could conclude that TCS used the com‐ parative analysis for a variety of purposes, including the 6 TCS does not challenge the constitutionality of the Wisconsin statute that sets this cap, and we do not question it either. The protections af‐ forded by the Constitution are not fixed to a particular ratio. See Campbell, 538 U.S. at 425. As such, the due‐process guarantee may be more protec‐ tive than a statutory cap in one case but less protective in another. Today, we hold only that, although the Wisconsin statute permits a 2:1 ratio, the constitutional protection under these circumstances goes further. Nos. 19‐1528 & 19‐1613 47 improvement of Med Mantra. However, the jury did not hear any evidence that would allow it to infer that any of Epic’s other information was used by TCS. Pursuant to the reasoning set forth above, the judgment of the district court upholding the jury’s $140 million compen‐ satory‐damages award connected to the comparative analysis is AFFIRMED; and, the judgment of the district court vacating the jury’s $100 million compensatory damages award for TCS’s use of other information is also AFFIRMED. Further, the judgment of the district court awarding $280 million in punitive damage is VACATED as it exceeds the outermost limit of the Due Process guarantee in the Constitu‐ tion; and, the issue of the amount of punitive damages is REMANDED with instruction to the district court to reduce the punitive‐damages award consistent with the analysis in this opinion.