(a) The remedies available for actual or threatened misappropriation of a trade secret are:
(1) To the extent that they are not duplicative:
a. Such injunctive and other equitable relief as may be appropriate with respect to any actual or threatened misappropriation of a trade secret,
b. Recovery of any profits and other benefits conferred by the misappropriation that are attributable to the misappropriation (In establishing the misappropriator’s profits, the complainant is required to present proof only of the misappropriator’s gross revenue, and the misappropriator is required to present proof of his or her deductible expenses and the elements of profit attributable to factors other than the trade secret.), and
c. The actual damages suffered as a result of the misappropriation;
(2) Reasonable attorney’s fees to the prevailing party if:
a. A claim of actual or threatened misappropriation is made or resisted in bad faith,
b. A motion to terminate an injunction is made or resisted in bad faith, or
c. Willful and malicious misappropriation exists; and
(3) Exemplary damages in an amount not to exceed the actual award made under subdivision (1), but not less than ten thousand dollars ($10,000), if willful and malicious misappropriation exists.
(b) In addition to the civil damages and penalties provided in subsection (a), a person who intentionally remunerates or recruits a third person for actual or threatened misappropriation of a trade secret and any person who misappropriates a trade secret shall be guilty of a Class C felony. In any criminal prosecution under this subsection against an employer based on misappropriation of a trade secret by its employee, the term intentionally shall mean that the employer remunerated an employee with the intent that the employee would misappropriate the trade secrets of another. The trade secret that was misappropriated shall be clearly identified. Mere acceptance or receipt by an employer of a trade secret of another, by itself, shall be insufficient to prove criminal liability. Each act committed under this subsection shall constitute a separate offense.
(Acts 1987, No. 87-669, p. 1195, §3; Act 2010-499, p. 781, §1.)
Notes of Decisions
Unisource Worldwide, Inc. v. South Cent. Alabama Supply, LLC, 199 F. Supp. 2d 1194 (M.D. Ala. 2001).
· cites it 3× “However, the exemplary damages available under the Alabama Trade Secrets Act, § 8-27-4, are only available in an amount equal to the extent of actual damages, and, as the court has shown, the amount of actual damages is likely irreparable.”
Systrends, Inc. v. Grp. 8760, LLC, 959 So. 2d 1052 (Ala. 2006).
“Also, because the appeal by Group 8760 argues only that the trial judge erred in declining to grant it a permanent injunction against Systrends pursuant to § 8-27-4(1)a. of the ATSA and attorney fees as the prevailing party on its ATSA claim under § 8-27-4 (2), our holding as to…”
Molex Co. v. Andress, 887 F. Supp. 2d 1189 (N.D. Ala. 2012).
· cites it 4× “” Ala Code §§ 8-27-4(a)(2)(c) & 8-27-4(a)(3).”
ShowCoat Solutions, LLC v. Butler (M.D. Ala. 2020).
· cites it 4× “See Ala. Code § 8-27-4 (1975). Under Alabama law, the court will enter a permanent injunction after a plaintiff succeeds on the merits of his case if (1) there is a substantial threat of irreparable injury absent an injunction; (2) the threatened injury to the plaintiff…”
Killough v. Monkress (N.D. Ala. 2022).
· cites it 4× “CODE § 8-27-4(a)(2). II. In this case, the jury found that (1) APL breached an agreement to pay Killough profits in 2015, resulting in damages of $293,823.”
Ranger Env't Servs. LLC v. Foehl (S.D. Ala. 2023).
· cites it 4× “(the Federal Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA)),1 and Ala. Code §§ 8-27-4 (a)(1)(a) and 8-1-195 (the Ala Trade Secrets Act (ATSA)).”
Killough v. Monkress (N.D. Ala. 2021).
· cites it 2× “§ 1836 (b)(3)(B); Ala. Code § 8-27-4 (a)(1). TCS and Killough argue that APL cannot show that the misappropriation and submission of APL’s labor rates to Northrop conferred any financial benefit to TCS and Killough or caused APL to lose any profit.”
— Ala. Code § 8-27-4(1) — 2 cases
Unisource Worldwide, Inc. v. South Cent. Alabama Supply, LLC, 199 F. Supp. 2d 1194 (M.D. Ala. 2001).
“However, the exemplary damages available under the Alabama Trade Secrets Act, § 8-27-4, are only available in an amount equal to the extent of actual damages, and, as the court has shown, the amount of actual damages is likely irreparable.”
Systrends, Inc. v. Grp. 8760, LLC, 959 So. 2d 1052 (Ala. 2006).
“Also, because the appeal by Group 8760 argues only that the trial judge erred in declining to grant it a permanent injunction against Systrends pursuant to § 8-27-4(1)a. of the ATSA and attorney fees as the prevailing party on its ATSA claim under § 8-27-4 (2), our holding as to…”
— Ala. Code § 8-27-4(3) — 1 case
— Ala. Code § 8-27-4(a)(2) — 1 case
Killough v. Monkress (N.D. Ala. 2022).
“CODE § 8-27-4(a)(2). II. In this case, the jury found that (1) APL breached an agreement to pay Killough profits in 2015, resulting in damages of $293,823.”
— Ala. Code § 8-27-4(a)(2)(c) — 1 case
Molex Co. v. Andress, 887 F. Supp. 2d 1189 (N.D. Ala. 2012).
“” Ala Code §§ 8-27-4(a)(2)(c) & 8-27-4(a)(3).”
— Ala. Code § 8-27-4(a)(l)(b) — 1 case
Molex Co. v. Andress, 887 F. Supp. 2d 1189 (N.D. Ala. 2012).
“” Ala Code §§ 8-27-4(a)(2)(c) & 8-27-4(a)(3).”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.