Non-Disclosure Agreement: Whoever Keeps His Mouth And His Tongue Keeps Himself Out Of Trouble.  Proverbs 21:23.

An inventor of a memory chip design brought an action against defendants alleging misappropriation of trade secrets, unfair competition, breach of contract and related causes of action, but the amended and operative pleading was only for breach of contract. A jury found the defendant breached the non-disclosure agreement signed at the outset of negotiations and that the plaintiff was harmed by that breach in the amount of $123,898,889.00. On appeal, the defendant contended the court should have granted JNOV instead of a new trial on the issue of damages, and that, at the very least, the court should have granted a new trial on the issue of liability because of evidentiary errors. The plaintiff also appealed, arguing the court erred in not granting injunctive relief, which was the remedy provided for in the non-disclosure agreement. In affirming the court’s JNOV order, the appellate court stated: “It is beyond question here that [plaintiff] established every element of breach of contract, including resulting harm. The court did not find insufficient proof of the existence of damages; it ruled only that the amount of those damages was calculated incorrectly and therefore warranted a new trial using the correct measure of value.” With regard to the argued evidentiary errors in admitting evidence, the appellate court found there was no showing of prejudice, so the court did not err in not ordering a new trial on liability. As to the plaintiff’s appeal, the appellate court also affirmed, finding plaintiff did not carry his burden to show that damages would be insufficient to prevent any future harm. (Grail Semiconductor, Inc. v. Mitsubishi Electric (Cal. App. Sixth Dist.; April 22, 2014)225 Cal.App.4th 786, [170 Cal.Rptr.3d 581].)