Beginning in 2005, plaintiff Learning Technology Partners, a technology company, provided online learning computer software and support as a service to the University of the Incarnate Word, a non-profit Catholic university. The service, IZIO, was developed at Stanford, and it allowed the University of the Incarnate Word to run an online school and offer online services to on-campus programs. The university paid Learning Technology Partners approximately $2.3 million for all services provided through 2014. However, Learning Technology Partners claimed that the university breached the governing services agreement. Learning Technology Partners sued the University of the Incarnate Word, alleging a breach of contract. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that the University of the Incarnate Word overused the online computer software for its on-campus programs without payment and that the university did not exclusively use Learning Technology Partners for all of its online programs. Counsel also contended that the university improperly created “middleware” and that its actions created issues with the server, but those contentions were ultimately abandoned just prior to trial. Defense counsel argued that there were no use limitations, as alleged by plaintiff’s counsel, and that the account manager for Learning Technology Partners had, in fact, helped the university use the software exactly as it was being used. Counsel also argued that the University of the Incarnate Word did not breach exclusivity and that, even if it did, Learning Technology Partners was fully compensated for any alleged breach, as the university fully paid for courses at the contracted rate, even when it began using a competitor (i.e., “efficient breach”). Defense counsel further argued that the university had always behaved ethically toward Learning Technology Partners and that it had never tried to take financial advantage of Learning Technology Partners. In addition, counsel attempted to show on cross-examination that Learning Technology Partners’ core claim — that the university had used the software without making adequate payment or that the university had made unauthorized uses of the software — were false. According to defense counsel, Learning Technology Partners’ president and account manager were both forced to make pivotal concessions on cross-examination. The University of the Incarnate Word asserted a counterclaim, alleging that Learning Technology Partners breached the contract by failing to operate the software service as required by the contract. In response to the counterclaim, counsel for Learning Technology Partners contended that over the life of the contract, the University of the Incarnate Word repeatedly commended Learning Technology Partners on the quality of its service., At trial, Learning Technology Partners sought recovery of $3 million. According to counsel for the University of the Incarnate Word, Learning Technology Partners initially sought recovery of more than $10 million pre-trail, but the amount was reduced by pre-trial motions. Counsel also contended that Learning Technology Partners’ damages expert, on cross-examination, exposed the artificial nature of the damages model being used. As part of its counterclaim, the University of the Incarnate Word sought recovery of unspecified damages, including, but not limited to, a refund of the $120,144 “efficient breach” payment.