United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT June 15, 2007
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-21094
ASTRO TECHNOLOGY, INC.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
VERSUS
ALLIANT TECHSYSTEMS, INC., ATK THIOKOL INC., SCOTT HYDE, and KURT
MILDENHALL
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
For the Southern District of Texas, Houston
Before GARWOOD, SMITH, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Astro Technology, Inc. (“Astro”) and its president David
Brower claim to have developed a proprietary method of using fiber
optic technology to gather data from inside solid rocket motors. In
2000, Astro formally entered into a business relationship with
defense and aerospace contractor ATK Thiokol, Inc.(“Thiokol”)1 to
*
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
1
Thiokol has since been acquired by Alliant Techsystems,
Inc., who is also a defendant-appellee in this suit. Astro also
sued two of Thiokol’s managers, Scott Hyde and Kurt Middenhall.
explore the usefulness of Astro’s technology in Thiokol’s rocket
motors. As part of their relationship, Astro and Thiokol signed a
Proprietary Information Agreement (“PIA”) governing the use,
exchange, and confidentiality of their ideas.
Thereafter, the relationship deteriorated and in 2003 Astro
sued Thiokol, alleging twelve causes of action including breach of
the PIA, misappropriation of trade secrets, fraud, and negligent
misrepresentation. On March 24, 2004, the district court dismissed
three of Astro’s claims under Rule 12(b)(6). On September 28, 2005,
the district court granted Thiokol’s motion for summary judgment on
Astro’s remaining claims, finding that Astro failed to present
evidence that raised a genuine issue of material fact. See FED. R.
CIV. P. 56(c). The court also excluded portions of the report
submitted by one of Astro’s expert witnesses, and limited David
Brower’s testimony to the subject of damages.
Astro appeals the district court’s order granting summary
judgment and its order limiting and excluding Astro’s expert
witnesses. Having carefully reviewed the record and the parties’
briefs, and having heard oral argument, we conclude that the
district court committed no reversible error, and we AFFIRM
essentially for the reasons stated by the district court. AFFIRMED.
Furthermore, Astro’s motion for sanctions, costs, and fees is
DENIED.
2
3