IP Law Daily, TRADE SECRETS—8th Cir.: Jury’s findings in favor of printing company on trade secret misappropriation, tortious interference, and causation of damages affirmed, (Jun 26, 2025)

By Carolin Dennis, B.Sc., LL.B., LL.M.

Evidence supported the jury’s findings on trade secret misappropriation, tortious interference, and causation of damages, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendants’ motion for a new trial.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of post-trial motions by Wright Printing Co. after a jury found that they misappropriated competitor Crabar/GBF, Inc.’s trade secrets after the parties’ completed an asset purchase and sale. Sufficient evidence supported the jury’s findings on trade secret misappropriation, tortious interference, and causation of damages, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendants’ motion for a new trial. The Eighth Circuit also ruled that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting expert testimony on damages and concluded that the jury’s awards were not excessive. In addition, the parties’ confidentiality agreements were enforceable and the defendant’s argument regarding application of a contractual damages limitation was waived for failure to raise it in the final pretrial order (Crabar/GBF, Inc. v. Wright, No. 23-3335 (8th Cir. June 24, 2025)).

Background. Wright Printing Co. (WPCO) manufactured various types of folders under the trade names Folder Express, Progress Publications, and Progress Publications Music. Mark Wright was WPCO’s President and Owner and Mardra Sikora WPCO’s CEO. Crabar/GBF, Inc. (Crabar) is a subsidiary of a wholesale manufacturer and supplier of printed business products. In September 2013, WPCO and Crabar entered an Asset Purchase and Sale Agreement (APA) and WPCO agreed to sell its folder business to Crabar, including all right and title to and interest in any and all customer lists, customer and prospect databases, customer sales information, and any Intellectual Property owned by WPCO and used in the business. Crabar claimed that after purchasing WPCO’s folder business, WPCO retained and used confidential information, including customer lists and sales data, to launch a competing folder business. Crabar also alleged that to aid in its new folder business, WPCO also relied on information from two former Crabar employees, Kolhaas and Frederickson.

The district court found Wright, WPCO, Sikora, Jamie Frederickson, and Alexandra Kohlhaas (collectively, defendants) liable for trade secret violations and related claims brought by Crabar. The jury found all defendants liable on each count, awarding Crabar over five million dollars in compensatory and exemplary damages. Post-trial motions led to a final amended judgment of roughly four million dollars against the defendants. The defendants appealed the jury verdict and several of the district court’s orders.

Breach of contract claims. WPCO argued that the district court erred in denying its motion for judgment as a matter of law because in WPCO’s view, § 8.6 of the APA precluded recovery of the type of damages awarded by the jury. The district court found that the final pretrial order signed by Crabar and WPCO following the pretrial conference did not identify WPCO’s § 8.6 argument. Noting this omission, the district court concluded that WPCO waived its argument and denied WPCO’s motion. The Eighth Circuit noted that WPCO failed to raise its § 8.6 argument at any point during the final pretrial conference, so the final pretrial order did not include it. Nor did WPCO request for its § 8.6 argument to be included in the final pretrial order. Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that WPCO’s § 8.6 argument fell outside the final pretrial conference order’s scope and waived it.

Frederickson and Kohlhaas argued the district court erred in denying their motions for judgment as a matter of law because the confidentiality agreements they signed when employed with Crabar are not enforceable contracts. They also argued that the confidentiality agreements are “policies,” not contracts, and point to language in the confidentiality agreements that they are “not a contract of employment.” The Eighth Circuit agreed that the confidentiality agreements were not contracts for Frederickson and Kohlhaas’s employment, but they were still agreements to keep Crabar’s confidential information confidential. Based on the texts of the confidentiality agreements, Frederickson and Kohlhaas promised they would not disclose confidential information without authorization, and they did so in exchange for their initial and continued employment. Therefore, the Eighth Circuit found that the language in the confidentiality agreements was “definite and certain,” and the parties mutually agreed to the terms. Thus, the district court did not err in denying Frederickson and Kohlhaas’s motions for judgment as a matter of law.

Motion for a new trial. The defendants challenged the district court’s denial of their motion for a new trial on Crabar’s trade secrets claims under the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act. At trial, Crabar argued that the defendants misappropriated six types of trade secrets: customer lists, customer information, sales and product cost modeling data, the Folder Express die inquiry spreadsheet, die template files, and die boards. The parties treated the latter three items collectively as the “folder information.” The verdict form did not ask the jury to separately determine whether each of the six alleged trade secrets were indeed trade secrets. Instead, the jury was asked to decide only whether each defendant was liable on Crabar’s “misappropriation of trade secrets claim.” On appeal, the defendants invoked the “general-verdict rule,” arguing they are entitled to a new trial because it is impossible to tell whether the jury based its trade secret verdicts on the folder information which the defendants assert is not a trade secret, or on one or more of the other three alleged trade secrets which the defendants do not contest are trade secrets.

The appellate court noted that WPCO itself treated the folder information as confidential: prior to negotiating the APA, WPCO required Crabar to sign a non-disclosure agreement promising not to disclose various types of information, including the folder information. Based on this evidence, a reasonable jury could find that the folder information had independent economic value due to its secrecy and that Crabar took reasonable steps to protect the secrecy of its folder information. Accordingly, the district court did not err in denying the defendants' motion for a new trial.

Tortious interference. Before and after the jury verdict, Wright, WPCO, and Sikora moved for judgment as a matter of law on the tortious interference of business relations or expectancy counts. The district court denied the motions. On appeal, Wright, WPCO, and Sikora challenged the sufficiency of the evidence only as to whether Crabar had a valid business relationship or expectancy. The appellate court found that contrary to Wright, WPCO, and Sikora’s contention, the evidence at trial showed more than past customer sales. Thus, the evidence was sufficient to prove that Crabar had a valid business relationship or expectancy. Accordingly, the district court did not err in denying the motions for judgment as a matter of law on Crabar’s tortious interference claims.

Abuse of discretion. On appeal, the defendants argued that Bero’s testimony was unreliable because Bero’s model made too many assumptions. The Eighth Circuit ruled that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting expert testimony on damages, as the expert Bero’s assumptions were not unsupported. The defendants also contended that Crabar’s awards for breach of the APA, trade secret violations, and tortious interference claims were duplicative because they arose out of the same operative facts and were based on the same source of damages. The appellate court found that the jury had the underlying data to assess Crabar’s various claims separately to avoid double recovery and awarded different amounts on the different claims. Thus, the appellate court determined that there was no error in the jury’s calculations, and therefore rejected the argument of double recovery. The appellate court also concluded that the district court did not err in denying the defendants’ motion for judgment as matter of law regarding causation, nor did it abuse its discretion in denying the defendants’ motion for a new trial.

The Case is No. 23-3335.

Judge: Kelly, J.

Attorneys: Patrick S. Cooper (Inserra & Kelley) for Crabar Inc. Paul D. Heimann (Orr Law Group PLLC) for Mark Wright.

Companies: Crabar/GBF, Inc.; Wright Printing Co.

Cases: TradeSecrets ArkansasNews IowaNews MinnesotaNews MissouriNews NebraskaNews NorthDakotaNews SouthDakotaNews