Allied Erecting & Dismantling Co. v. Genesis Equipment & Manufacturing, Inc., 511 F. App'x 398

Allied sues Genesis and Mark Ramun for misappropriation of trade secrets under OUTSA; jury awards $3,046,800 in unjust enrichment but no lost profits and no punitive damages.
Ramun left Allied in 2002, took approx. 15,000 Allied documents, then worked for Genesis and helped develop the LXP/Versi-Pro with alleged copied elements.
Genesis earned about $14 million gross from LXPs.
Allied asserted its trade secrets included the Allied MT features (GATOR 34, one-piece extended shaft, shrink fit, roller-thrust bearings) and related business plan; Genesis argued those elements were public or not protectable.
District court instructed on lost profits requiring reasonable certainty and allowed evidence of alternative, non-infringing products; Allied urged broader causation for lost profits but district court structured the proof.
The Sixth Circuit overall reversed the district court’s vacatur of the unjust-enrichment award and affirmed all other holdings, including denial of permanent injunction, punitive damages, and other issues.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the district court err in vacating unjust-enrichment damages?	Allied argues damages were proven with certainty via Genesis profits.	Genesis argues no sufficient link to Allied loss; profits projection too attenuated.	No error; causation shown; damages reinstated.
Were lost-profits instructions and evidence proper?	Allied contends lost profits may be shown from misappropriation-caused loss.	Genesis contends need for loss proof; alternative products allowed.	District court did not err; sufficient certainty and linking evidence supported loss.
Should Allied receive a permanent injunction based on misappropriation?	Jury finding supports injunction.	Irreparable harm not shown; adequate remedy at law.	Affirmed denial of permanent injunction.
Was there plain error requiring a new trial on punitive damages?	Ramun included in punitive-damages instructions; objection preserved.	No proper objection; Ramun excluded from instruction.	Waived; no plain error; no new trial on punitive damages.
Did the district court err on spoliation and related evidentiary rulings?	Evidence destruction should support adverse-inference; Ramun’s spoliation should affect verdict.	No actual spoliation; no adverse inference warranted.	District court did not abuse discretion; no new trial.

Barzingus v. Wilheim, 306 F.3d 17 (10th Cir. 2010) (motion to compel arbitration standard similar to summary judgment standard)
Jones v. Federated Fin. Reserve Corp., 144 F.3d 961 (6th Cir. 1998) (standard for reviewing jury instructions and evidentiary rulings)
Noble v. Brinker Int’l, Inc., 391 F.3d 715 (6th Cir. 2004) (proper consideration of damages and testimony in trial)