and data that he had utilized in reaching his conclusions; he listed ninety-nine documents that he had reviewed in reaching a lost tion of the 2006 to 2010 “but-for” sales element of his lost-profits analysis, claiming that Shipp’s numbers are overly speculative, especially regarding AHC’s estimated growth rates for the chain retailer market and the independent store market. But Shipp’s proffered growth rates stemmed from AHC’s prior increases in sales in these two markets, and Shipp detailed the differences between the growth rates for the two markets and the method he had used to accommodate them. Shipp’s growth rates accorded with AHC’s trending sales and the overall hat market. See White v. Sw. Bell Tel. Co., 651 S.W.2d 260, 262 (Tex.1983) (stating that “in calculating t (<HOLDING>). To the contrary, Maddox testified that AHC
holding that in litigation arising from a product related injury in the forum state there are significant differences between the exercise of jurisdiction over a retailer who simply sold the product locally and the exercise of jurisdiction over a manufacturer whose products were sold over a large area holding opinion testimony of sales should have been excluded because opinion not based on comparable sales holding evidence insuffi cient to support jurys 15 million lostprofits award when experts computations were not based on facts figures or data because computations ignored reality that plaintiff company had a history of losses and had never made a profit on its operations holding that the defendant lacked sufficient contacts with the forum state because there was no evidence the defendant knew where the product would be sold holding lostprofits award based on projected sales of a product not yet developed to the point of a working model too speculative because no evidence existed that the product had been sold to anyone