Oldnar Corp. v. Sanyo N. Am. Corp.

── Oldnar Corp. v. Sanyo N. Am. Corp. ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit Date: May 12, 2026 Category: General NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION File Name: 26a0211n.06 Case Nos. 25-1336/1589 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT FILED May 12, 2026 ) KELLY L. STEPHENS, Clerk OLDNAR CORPORATION, ) Plaintiff-Appellant/Cross-Appellee, ) ) ON APPEAL FROM THE v. ) UNITED STATES DISTRICT ) COURT FOR THE WESTERN SANYO NORTH AMERICA CORPORATION, et al., ) DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN Defendants-Appellees/Cross-Appellants. ) ) OPINION Before: SUTTON, Chief Judge; MOORE and BUSH, Circuit Judges. The court delivered a PER CURIAM opinion. BUSH, J. (pp. 11–17), delivered a separate dissenting opinion. PER CURIAM. This case returns to us for a second time. In 2008, Nartron Corporation (known today as “Oldnar”) and Sanyo Corporation (now a part of Panasonic) formed an agreement to work together on an in-car touchscreen, hoping to sell the product to General Motors. About 18 months later, Sanyo left Nartron for a new partner. Nartron responded by filing this federal lawsuit, alleging breach of contract and related claims. The district court granted summary judgment to Sanyo, but we reversed in part (finding there was potential liability on the breach of contract and unjust enrichment claims) and remanded for further consideration. On remand, the district court found contract liability up to November 2009 but awarded only nominal damages in view of Nartron’s failure to establish proof of cognizable damages up to Case Nos. 25-1336/1589, Oldnar Corp. v. Sanyo N. Am. Corp. et al. that point. The court found no further liability on Nartron’s contract claim and no liability on its unjust enrichment claim. And it denied Sanyo’s request for attorney’s fees. Because we agree with the district court’s damages ruling, and Nartron has presented no other damages calculation method or evidence to support their measure of damages, we affirm on that ground. I. Nartron Corporation makes touchscreen interfaces. Sanyo Corporation makes digital user interface systems. See Oldnar Corp. v. Panasonic Corp. of N. Am., 766 F. App’x 255, 257 (6th Cir. 2019). In early 2008, the two companies joined forces to compete for a contract to produce digital interfaces for General Motors. Id. To that end, they entered into a Development and Supply Agreement on April 2, 2008, committing to work together on an in-car touchscreen that Sanyo could pitch to General Motors. The terms of the agreement require some explanation. Section 9.3 of the agreement forbids either party from using the other’s “intellectual property,” and section 1.3 defines intellectual property “broadly.” Id. at 257–58, 262. Section 5.1 structures “Product Agreement[s].” Id. at 258. These agreements govern the parties’ relationship in two events: (1) if General Motors awards the touchscreen contract to Sanyo based on a product jointly developed with Nartron and (2) if Sanyo selects Nartron as the supplier of the touchscreen hardware for the contract. Id. By contrast, if General Motors selects the product jointly developed by Sanyo and Nartron, but thereafter Sanyo declines to select Nartron as the manufacturer or supplier, section 5.2 requires Nartron to license its intellectual property to Sanyo. Id. In that eve