Maatuk

Josef Maatuk appeals from the judgment entered in favor of respondent Bruce J. Guttman, on Maatuk’s complaint. We affirm.

Facts

Respondent represented Maatuk, a mechanical engineer, in litigation that resulted in the invalidation of two patents Maatuk had obtained for a *1163 liquid-level sensor. This legal malpractice case followed. In this case, the jury was instructed that respondent was negligent in his representation of Maatuk. On special verdicts, the jury found negligence and that respondent had breached his fiduciary duty. 1 The jury also found that the breach of duty was a substantial factor in causing harm or monetary damage to Maatuk, and made the same finding about respondent’s negligence. 2 On damages, the jury was asked “What are Dr. Josef Maatuk’s monetary damages? a. Past and Future Lost Earnings?” The jury answered “$0.00.”

The question on appeal concerns damages, more specifically, the trial court’s order striking the testimony of Maatuk’s damages expert, Dr. Barbara Luna. Our summary of the facts is directed toward that issue:

Maatuk expected to profit from his invention through a licensing agreement through which he would earn a royalty on each…