Opinion ID: 222717
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 19

Heading: Sufficiency of the evidence of willful and malicious misappropriation

Text: Biamp argues that ClearOne failed to present substantial evidence that Biamp acted willfully and maliciously, as required under Utah Code Ann. § 13-24-5 for the district court to impose fees and costs against Biamp. Aplt. Br. at 60. We conclude that Biamp failed to preserve this issue for appeal. As we have already discussed, Biamp's Rule 50(a) motion failed to specifically challenge the sufficiency of ClearOne's evidence on the willful and malicious issue. Moreover, at no point in Biamp's objection to ClearOne's motion for attorneys' fees did Biamp argue that there was insufficient evidence to support the jury's finding that Biamp acted willfully or maliciously. Rather, Biamp asserted that a finding of willful or malicious trade-secret misappropriation, by itself, d[id] not render the award of fees mandatory, JA at D19894, and it proceeded to offer various reasons why the district court should decline to award fees and costs to ClearOne. Thus, in sum, the issue has been forfeited, and Biamp makes no attempt to establish the existence of plain error. See Richison v. Ernest Grp., Inc., 634 F.3d 1123, 1128 (10th Cir.2011).