Opinion ID: 62982
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Jury Instructions Regarding Contract Damages

Text: The district court instructed the jury that the only question before it was whether Nano sustained damages as a result of Canon's breach of the 1999 patent licensing contract in addition to its retaining the $5.5 million purchase price of the license and terminating the contract. [8] Nano argues that the jury instructions were erroneous because under New York law: (1) termination of the PLA was not relevant to the fair-market value of the lost license and (2) Nano's retention of the $5.5 million was irrelevant because a non-breaching party who terminates a contract may keep prior payments rendered and sue for damages. [9] We need not decide this issue because, as discussed in Part III, supra, we find that Nano is not entitled to damages based on the value of a prospective license because it did not prove such damages with reasonable certainty. Schonfeld, 218 F.3d at 177. Therefore, even if Nano is correct that the jury instructions were erroneous, it is not entitled to a remand on this basis.