Neocyte, Inc. Read S. McCarty v. Miles Laboratories, Inc., and Cutter Laboratories, Inc., Jack Ryan and Does 1 Through 100, Inclusive

892 F.2d 83 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. NEOCYTE, INC.; Read S. McCarty, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. MILES LABORATORIES, INC., Defendant-Appellee, and Cutter Laboratories, Inc., Jack Ryan and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants. No. 88-15468. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted Nov. 15, 1989. Decided Dec. 12, 1989. Before FARRIS, PREGERSON and RYMER, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM * 2 Cutter's undisclosed decision and plan to develop its own blood bag separator allegedly violated certain obligations to Neocyte resulting in "great damage to Neocyte and our investors." The trial court granted Cutter's motion for summary judgment. Neocyte appeals. 3 We have carefully reviewed the record as we are obligated to do for de novo review, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. See e.g. Ashton v. Cory, 780 F.2d 816, 818 (9th Cir.1986). 4 Neocyte's failure to create a genuine issue of material fact…