Lightlab Immaging, Inc. v. Axsun Technologies, Inc., et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-130-14)
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports. If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA, 02108-1750; (617) 557-1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us SJC-11374 LIGHTLAB IMAGING, INC. vs. AXSUN TECHNOLOGIES, INC., & another.[1] Suffolk. December 2, 2013. – July 28, 2014. Present: Ireland, C.J., Spina, Cordy, Botsford, Gants, Duffly, & Lenk, JJ. Contract, Performance and breach, Implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, Interference with contractual relations, Construction of contract. Unlawful Interference. Trade Secret. Unjust Enrichment. Consumer Protection Act, Unfair act or practice. Evidence, Expert opinion. Witness, Expert. Damages, Future damages, Loss of profits. Declaratory Relief. Injunction. Practice, Civil, Injunctive relief. Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on January 7, 2009. The case was tried before Margaret R. Hinkle, J.; a motion for summary judgement was heard by her; and entry of final judgment was ordered by Peter M. Lauriat, J. The Supreme Judicial Court granted an application for direct appellate review. Kenneth R. Berman (Cynthia M. Guizzetti with him) for the plaintiff. William F. Lee (Felicia H. Ellsworth & Laurence A. Schoen with him) for the defendants. SPINA, J. The plaintiff, Lightlab Imaging, Inc. (LightLab), prevailed in much of the litigation below, which involved claims of breach of contract and the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, tortious interference with contractual and advantageous business relations, misappropriation of trade secrets and confidential information, unjust enrichment, and violations of G. L. c. 93A. LightLab appeals from three aspects of the judgment pertaining to relief. First, the judge excluded opinion testimony from LightLab’s expert economist on the question of future lost profits for twenty years beyond the term of the parties’ contract based on yet-to-be conceived future products. Second, the judge denied permanent injunctive relief that LightLab sought for protection against future misappropriation of its trade secrets where, although LightLab had established past misappropriation, it offered no proof of a likely reoccurrence. Third, the judge who entered the amended final judgment declined to include in that judgment a declaration of LightLab’s contract rights that mirrored the language of the order for summary judgment concerning contract interpretation. We affirm, but order the inclusion of the declaration sought by LightLab. 1. Background. The trial of this action was conducted in multiple phases. We summarize the various phases. a. Liability phase. The liability claims, except for the G. L. c. 93A claim and certain of the trade secret claims, were tried to a jury. The jury could have […]