Printable Format60-3321. Misappropriation of trade secret; injunctive or other protective relief. (a) Actual or threatened misappropriation may be enjoined. Upon application to the court, an injunction shall be terminated when the trade secret has ceased to exist, but the injunction may be continued for an additional reasonable period of time in order to eliminate commercial advantage that otherwise would be derived from the misappropriation.
(b) In exceptional circumstances, an injunction may condition future use upon payment of a reasonable royalty for no longer than the period of time for which use could have been prohibited. Exceptional circumstances include, but are not limited to, a material and prejudicial change of position prior to acquiring knowledge or reason to know of misappropriation that renders a prohibitive injunction inequitable.
(c) In appropriate circumstances, affirmative acts to protect a trade secret may be compelled by court order.
History: L. 1981, ch. 214, § 2; L. 1988, ch. 221, § 1; July 1.
Law Review and Bar Journal References:
"Litigating Noncompetition Agreements in Kansas," Steven D. Ruse, 55 J.K.B.A., No. 3, 28, 30 (1986).
Attorney General's Opinions:
Insurance department may, but is not required to, refuse to provide copies of materials that are copyrighted; burden on the department to show that the records that are the subject of request are protected by copyright. 2010-17.
CASE ANNOTATIONS
1. Granting injunction based on act would deny defendant benefit of federal copyright statute; federal law preempted act. Foresight Resources Corp. v. Pfortmiller, 719 F. Supp. 1006, 1011 (1989).
2. Mentioned; injunction issued against former employee who signed non-compete covenant. Universal Engraving, Inc. v. Duarte, 519 F. Supp. 2d 1140, 1154 (2007).
3. Kansas uniform trade secrets act cited and discussed; misappropriation of trade secret found. Progressive Products, Inc. v. Swartz, 41 Kan. App. 2d 745, 205 P.3d 766 (2009).
4. Case remanded to the district court to specify the basis for imposing the royalty injunction and other short-term injunctive relief. Progressive Products, Inc. v. Swartz, 292 Kan. 947, 258 P.3d 969 (2011).
5. Request to enjoin further disclosure of information was not granted as plaintiff cited no evidence of any prior disclosure of trade secrets by defendant, the requested injunction was overly broad, and plaintiff failed to cite evidence showing a risk of current disclosure or harm sufficient to justify the request injunction. Tank Connection, LLC v. Haight, 161 F. Supp. 3d 957, 967 (D. Kan. 2016).
6. Showing of monetary damages not required for relief from misappropriation of trade secrets. API Americas Inc. v. Miller, 380 F. Supp. 3d 1141, 1147 (D. Kan. 2019).