Page:MGE UPS Systems Inc. v. GE Consumer and Industrial Inc. (5th Cir., 20 July 2010).djvu/4

No. 08-10521 #Damages for misappropriation of trade secrets on MGE’s data disk:
 * 1) Net profits earned by GE/PMI from January 1, 2001 to December 17, 2001: $460,000
 * 2) Net profits earned by GE/PMI from December 18, 2001 to August 15, 2005: $1,852,000
 * 3) Damages for copyright infringement:
 * 4) Net profits earned by GE/PMI from January 1, 2001 to December 17, 2001: $368,000
 * 5) Net profits earned by GE/PMI from December 18, 2001 to August 15, 2005: $1,852,000
 * 6) Damages for misappropriation of MGE software trade secrets:
 * 7) Net profits earned by GE/PMI from January 1, 2001 to December 17, 2001: $92,000
 * 8) Net profits earned by GE/PMI from December 18, 2001 to August 15, 2005: $0
 * TOTAL: $4,624,000

The district court awarded MGE the total jury verdict, post judgment interest, a permanent injunction against GE/PMI, impoundment of infringing materials, taxable costs, and attorney’s fees. The district court declined to award prejudgment interest on the damage awards.

II
MGE argues that the district court erred in granting GE/PMI’s Rule 50(a) motion dismissing MGE’s DMCA violation claim. We review de novo a trial court’s decision on a Rule 50(a) motion for judgment as a matter of law, viewing all of the evidence “in the light and with all reasonable inferences most favorable to the party opposed to the motion.” Resolution Trust Corp. v. Cramer, 6 F.3d 1102, 1109 (5th Cir. 1993) (internal quotations omitted). A Rule 50(a) motion is properly granted “[i]f the facts and inferences point so strongly and 4