Trade-secret damages expert
Expert class library · Intellectual property · Plaintiff side
Quantifies the monetary harm from trade secret misappropriation through the owner's lost profits, the defendant's unjust enrichment, or a reasonable royalty, often by measuring the head start or development costs the defendant avoided. Courts test whether each damages figure is tied to the specific secrets the jury actually found misappropriated and rests on more than speculation.
What this expert is retained to answer
- How much did the defendant gain, in profits or avoided research and development cost, from using the misappropriated information?
- How long a head start did the misappropriation give the defendant, and what was that head start worth?
- What lost sales or profits did the owner suffer that were caused by the misappropriation rather than ordinary competition?
- What royalty would the parties have agreed to for use of the secrets in a hypothetical negotiation?
- Does the damages figure change when the set of misappropriated secrets is narrowed?
Methods
- Unjust enrichment calculation
- Avoided cost and head-start analysis
- Reasonable royalty for trade secrets
- Lost profits causation
How the testimony is attacked
- Damages not tied to the secrets actually found misappropriated. Defendants argue the model claims all revenue from the accused product without isolating the value of the particular secrets at issue. In Alifax Holding v. Alcor Scientific the court excluded the trade secret damages opinions because they did not adjust as the asserted secrets narrowed and did not fit the misappropriation the jury found.
- Speculative inputs to unjust enrichment. Opponents attack enrichment figures built on uncertain events such as the defendant's ability to raise investor money. In Pascal Metrics v. Health Catalyst the court admitted the plaintiff's damages expert but warned that damages experts may not opine on speculative evidence about investor funding.
- Reliance on another expert's excluded or unproven predicate. A damages expert who builds on a technical expert's conclusions stands or falls with that foundation. In Iconics v. Massaro the court declined to exclude the defense damages expert merely for relying on the technical expert, but struck placeholder opinions that the expert never updated after discovery.
- Failure to update the analysis as the case changes. Challengers point to reports that were not revised after claims were dropped or narrowed. Both the Alifax and Iconics courts faulted opinions left unchanged after the factual landscape shifted.
What the public record shows
A deliberately narrow CourtListener search, "trade secret" AND "unjust enrichment" AND "damages expert" AND (Daubert OR "Rule 702"), returned 8 opinions filed since 2015, as of October 2, 2026; broader searches return more. Three that show how courts handle this class of testimony:
| Outcome | Case | Court | Why |
|---|---|---|---|
| Excluded | Alifax Holding Spa v. Alcor Scientific Inc.387 F. Supp. 3d 170 | D.R.I. 2019 | The court excluded the plaintiffs' trade secret damages opinions in their entirety because the all-revenue theory was not supported by the cited data, ignored the narrowing of the asserted secrets, and had no relationship to the misappropriation the jury found. |
| Admitted | Pascal Metrics, Inc. v. Health Catalyst, Inc.C.A. No. N22C-01-175 MMJ CCLD | Del. Super. Ct. 2023 | The court denied the motion to exclude the plaintiff's unjust enrichment damages expert, holding the objections went to weight, while cautioning that damages experts may not opine based on speculative evidence about investor funding. |
| Limited | Iconics, Inc. v. Massaro266 F. Supp. 3d 461 | D. Mass. 2017 | The court allowed the defendants' damages expert to testify despite his reliance on the defense technical expert, but excluded his unrevised placeholder opinions about the plaintiff's participation in a standard-setting organization. |
Each case links to the free opinion text on CourtListener.
Under amended Rule 702
Since December 1, 2023, Rule 702 says expressly that the party offering an expert must show the court it is more likely than not that the testimony meets each requirement: that it rests on sufficient facts or data, uses reliable methods, and reflects a reliable application of those methods to the case. Questions about the basis of an opinion are no longer automatically matters of weight for the jury. For how the circuits have applied the amendment, see the Rule 702 tracker, which follows each court of appeals; for what that means for preparing or attacking this class of expert, see the guide on amended Rule 702.
Related classes
Guides
Simulating this class on a matter
Supreme Mind simulates a class of expert, never a named individual, on your fact pattern and returns the likely opinion, the ranked cross-examination weaknesses, the Rule 702 attack surface and what it means for settlement. Read how it works, or book a demo.
Last reviewed October 2, 2026. How this page is built: rulings are found by searching court opinions on CourtListener, and each one is read in the opinion before it is summarised here; outcomes are labelled by what the court did with the expert's testimony. No individual expert is named. This page summarises public decisions for orientation and is not legal advice; read the opinion before relying on any ruling.