Premier Lab Supply, Inc. v. Chemplex Industries, Inc., 94 So. 3d 640

Plaintiff-appellee claimed defendant misappropriated appellee's trade secret spooling machine design in 1999.
Damages trial included actual losses and unjust enrichment, with separate accounting period instructions for unjust enrichment.
Appellant sought a head-start period limiting actual losses to the time the trade secret remained a secret.
Appellant ceased using the spooling machine on August 8, 2007, replacing it with a publicly available label machine.
Jury found $196,500 in actual losses (1999–2007) and $100,000 in unjust enrichment (1999–2003).
Trial court allowed comparable machines evidence for unjust enrichment but not to reduce actual losses.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether head-start period applies to actual losses	Appellant argued head-start period should cap actual losses.	Appellee argued no such cap is required for actual losses.	No abuse; actual loss not limited to head-start period.
Whether the court properly instructed on accounting period and responses to jury questions	appellant urged guidance on trade-secret status and head-start limits.	appellee contends proper instructions already provided.	Court did not err; responses consistent with statute and definitions.

CardioVention, Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc., 483 F.Supp.2d 830 (D. Minn. 2007) (actual loss can be measured by the value of the loss of the secret)
Univ. Computing Co. v. Lykes-Youngstown Corp., 504 F.2d 518 (5th Cir. 1974) (lost sales may be a helpful approach to show injury)
Jet Spray Cooler, Inc. v. Crampton, 377 Mass. 159 (1979) (head-start rule improper for damages in some contexts)
Russo v. Ballard Med. Prods., 550 F.3d 1004 (10th Cir. 2008) (no reversible error in applying head-start concept to unjust enrichment)
RRK Holding Co. v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 563 F.Supp.2d 832 (N.D. Ill. 2008) (injunctive head-start vs. damages distinction)