PJC Business

PJC 115.54

D AMAGES

County v. Smith , 96 S.W.3d 230, 233–34 (Tex. 2002) (broad-form submission of valid and invalid elements of damages may lead to harmful error if there is a proper objec tion raising insufficiency of the evidence to support one or more of the elements sub mitted). In cases involving more than one claimed trade secret, consider whether the elements of damages should be submitted separately for each trade secret the jury finds was misappropriated. For further discussion, see PJC 116.2 regarding broad form issues and the Casteel doctrine. Further, “[p]rejudgment interest may not be assessed or recovered on an award of future damages.” Tex. Fin. Code § 304.1045 (wrongful death, personal injury, or prop erty damage cases). Therefore, separation of past and future damages is required. Elements considered separately. Golden Eagle Archery, Inc. v. Jackson , 116 S.W.3d 757, 770 (Tex. 2003), provides an instruction for cases involving undefined or potentially overlapping categories of damages. In those cases, the following language should be substituted for the instruction to consider each element separately: Consider the following elements of damages, if any, and none other. You shall not award any sum of money on any element if you have otherwise, under some other element, awarded a sum of money for the same loss. That is, do not compensate twice for the same loss, if any. Prejudgment interest. Instructing the jury not to add interest is suggested because prejudgment interest, if recoverable, will be calculated by the court at the time of judgment. Texas Theft Liability Act. In dicta but applying Texas law, the Fifth Circuit court of appeals opined that the “civil remedy provided for by the [Texas Theft Liability Act (TTLA)] for misappropriation of trade secrets was super[s]eded by the Texas Uniform Trade Secrets Act (TUTSA) . . . .” In re Mandel , 578 Fed. Appx. 376, 384 n.8 (5th Cir. 2014) (per curiam) (recognizing that the “TUTSA has no effect on the present litiga tion because the act only applies” to misappropriations made on or after September 1, 2013). The legislature removed the provision applying the TTLA to theft of trade secrets effective September 1, 2013. Beardmore v. Jacobsen , 131 F. Supp. 3d 656, 670 n.3 (S.D. Tex. 2015). For questions and instructions pertaining to the Theft Liability Act, see the current edition of State Bar of Texas, Texas Pattern Jury Charges—General Negligence, Intentional Personal Torts & Workers’ Compensation ch. 7. Future damages. Future damages may not be recoverable if an injunction is obtained. Pursuant to the Texas Uniform Trade Secrets Act (the “Act”), effective Sep tember 1, 2013, an injunction may condition future use of the trade secret upon pay ment of a reasonable royalty in “exceptional circumstances.” Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem.

550