The district court improperly excluded plaintiff’s economics expert’s testimony defining product markets and improperly granted SAP summary judgment on Terradata’s antitrust tie-in and trade secret claims. The expert used recognized economic methods to identify the tying and tied markets. Terradata’s evidence raised genuine issues as to whether SAP had market power in the tying market and adversely affected a not insubstantial volume of commerce by requiring purchasers of its business analytics programs to also buy and use its database program. On the trade secret claim there were genuine issues of fact about whether the batched merge method of communicating between the database and the analytics program was a “tool” over which Teradata exercised ownership under the parties’ agreement.