JOHN O'MEARA, District Judge
This matter comes before the court on defendant Lionel's June 10, 2004 motion to dismiss or for directed verdict and defendants Korea Brass and Yoo Chan Yang's June 17, 2004 motion for directed verdict. No response was filed, and no oral argument was heard.
This case was tried before a jury for approximately four weeks. Defendants moved for directed verdict at the close of proofs, and the court took those motions under advisement. Defendants filed briefs in support of their motions after the verdict was rendered.
Rule 50(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that "[i]f during a trial by jury a party has been fully heard on an issue and there is no legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to find for that party on that issue, the court may determine the issue against that party and may grant a motion for judgment as a matter of law against that party with respect to a claim or defense that cannot under controlling law be maintained or defeated without a favorable finding on that issue."
Defendant Lionel argues the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff's claims brought under the Michigan Uniform Trade Secrets Act because Plaintiff failed to present any evidence to establish that any misappropriation of trade secrets occurred in the United States. Lionel further argues that it is entitled to a directed verdict because Plaintiff failed to present a legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to conclude that Plaintiff established the following essential elements of its claim against Lionel: 1) trade secret status and ownership of the trade secrets, 2) misappropriation of the trade secrets, 3) that the information it seeks to protect is anything other than readily ascertainable information and industry knowledge, 4) any trade secret protection was not lost when MTH publicly disclosed its finished products, 5) MTH took reasonable security measures to protect the secrecy of the information at issue, and 6) that Lionel knowingly acquired or used any of the trade secrets.
All of these issues were presented by Lionel in various pre-trial motions and ruled upon by the court. A directed verdict is appropriate only when no material question of fact exists upon which reasonable minds could differ. In this case the evidence Plaintiff presented at trial was legally sufficient for a reasonable jury to find for Plaintiff. Therefore, the court will deny defendant Lionel's motion to dismiss or for directed verdict.
Defendants Korea Brass and Yang also move for directed verdict based on issues they brought before the court prior to trial. They argue that the designs and drawings at issue did not constitute trade secrets and that the court lacks jurisdiction to enforce the Michigan Uniform Trade Secrets Act on defendants KB and Yang based on the principle of "extraterritoriality."
Again, because Plaintiff presented at trial legally sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find for Plaintiff, the court will deny Korea Brass and Yang's motion for directed verdict.
ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that defendant Lionel's June 10, 2004 motion to dismiss or for directed verdict is DENIED.
It is further ORDERED that defendants Korea Brass and Yang's June 16, 2004 motion for directed verdict is DENIED.