Recreational Data Services, Inc. v. Trimble Navigation Limited
404 P.3d 120
Alaska
2017

Background

  • RDS (Alaska corp.) proposed a ruggedized smartphone preloaded with outdoor apps and partnered with Trimble Mobile and Remington (the “Copper Center Project”); Remington later withdrew.
  • RDS and Trimble Mobile executed a mutual nondisclosure agreement; RDS shared market-research–based profit-and-loss statements with Trimble Mobile marked confidential.
  • Trimble Mobile employees communicated with Trimble Outdoors, which launched ReconHunt/ReconFish apps similar to RDS’s HuntZone/FishZone; RDS alleges Trimble Mobile shared confidential materials and misled RDS about competition.
  • RDS sued Trimble for intentional and negligent misrepresentation, breach of the NDA/contract, and breach of fiduciary duty (partnership theory); a jury awarded $51.3 million in lost profits.
  • The superior court granted judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV), holding RDS failed to prove lost profits with reasonable certainty; RDS appealed.
  • Alaska Supreme Court reversed the JNOV as to liability (sufficient evidence for jury to find liability) but affirmed that lost-profits damages were not proven with reasonable certainty; remittitur ordered and nominal damages to be awarded.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Whether evidence supports misrepresentation (actual and justifiable reliance) RDS: Trimble Mobile repeatedly assured RDS that Trimble Outdoors’ project did not compete; RDS relied and refrained from launching standalone apps Trimble: RDS knew of risk and could not have relied; RDS would not have acted differently Court: Reasonable juror could find justifiable and actual reliance (misrepresentations induced delay and inaction)
Whether Trimble Mobile breached the NDA by sharing confidential P&L/market data RDS: profit-and-loss statements were marked confidential and were forwarded by Chen to Trimble Outdoors personnel Trimble: data originated with Remington/others and was not protected or properly designated Court: Notice on Feucht’s email sufficed; evidence supported that Chen shared confidential project financials — NDA breach question for jury
Whether a partnership/fiduciary duty existed and was breached RDS: parties acted as partners (shared duties, presentations to investors, profit-sharing expectations); Trimble Mobile put interests of Trimble Outdoors over the project Trimble: No formal partnership; no co-ownership or intent; duties not triggered Court: Reasonable juror could find partnership and that Trimble Mobile breached loyalty by sharing partnership information and misleading RDS
Whether RDS proved lost profits with reasonable certainty RDS: relied on joint P&L statements and Trimble’s whiteboard valuation showing projected revenue; jury awarded lost profits Trimble: projections speculative, uncorroborated, and not reasonably certain for a new business; damages unsupported Court: Liability and causation could be found, but lost-profits amount lacked the factual foundation required; vacated damages, remitted for nominal damages

Key Cases Cited

  • Cameron v. Chang-Craft, 251 P.3d 1008 (Alaska 2011) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence on JNOV)
  • L.D.G., Inc. v. Brown, 211 P.3d 1110 (Alaska 2009) (evidence-viewing standard for motion judgments)
  • Wiersum v. Harder, 316 P.3d 557 (Alaska 2013) (de novo review and jury-evidence framing)
  • Lightle v. State, Real Estate Comm’n, 146 P.3d 980 (Alaska 2006) (elements of fraudulent misrepresentation)
  • S. Alaska Carpenters Health & Sec. Tr. Fund v. Jones, 177 P.3d 844 (Alaska 2008) (negligent misrepresentation standard)
  • Anchorage Chrysler Center v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 221 P.3d 977 (Alaska 2009) (nominal damages may be awarded when harm proven but amount unprovable)
  • Fernandes v. Portwine, 56 P.3d 1 (Alaska 2002) (preponderance is civil burden of proof)
  • Azimi v. Johns, 254 P.3d 1054 (Alaska 2011) (reasonable certainty standard for lost profits)
  • Guard v. P & R Enterprises, Inc., 631 P.2d 1068 (Alaska 1981) (limits on using pure statistical projections to prove lost profits)
  • Native Alaskan Reclamation & Pest Control, Inc. v. United Bank Alaska, 685 P.2d 1211 (Alaska 1984) (foreseeability of contract damages)
  • Geolar, Inc. v. Gilbert/Commonwealth Inc. of Mich., 874 P.2d 937 (Alaska 1994) (unreliable plaintiff estimates insufficient for lost-profits award)
Read the full case