Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-401

Definitions

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

In this chapter, unless the context otherwise requires:

1. "Improper means" includes theft, bribery, misrepresentation, breach or inducement of a breach of a duty to maintain secrecy or espionage through electronic or other means.

2. "Misappropriation" means either:

(a) Acquisition of a trade secret of another by a person who knows or has reason to know that the trade secret was acquired by improper means.

(b) Disclosure or use of a trade secret of another without express or implied consent by a person who either:

(i) Used improper means to acquire knowledge of the trade secret.

(ii) At the time of disclosure or use, knew or had reason to know that his knowledge of the trade secret was derived from or through a person who had utilized improper means to acquire it, was acquired under circumstances giving rise to a duty to maintain its secrecy or limit its use or was derived from or through a person who owed a duty to the person seeking relief to maintain its secrecy or limit its use.

(iii) Before a material change of his position, knew or had reason to know that it was a trade secret and that knowledge of it had been acquired by accident or mistake.

3. "Person" means a natural person, corporation, business trust, estate, trust, partnership, association, joint venture, government, governmental subdivision or agency or any other legal or commercial entity.

4. "Trade secret" means information, including a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique or process, that both:

(a) Derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable by proper means by, other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use.

(b) Is the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 74 cases (38 in the last 5 years), 1941–2026 · leading case: HTS, Inc. v. Boley

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

HTS, Inc. v. Boley (2013) azd · cites it 20× “§ 1125 (a), misappropriation of trade secrets under the Arizona Uniform Trade Secrets Act, Ariz.Rev.Stat. § 44-401 to § 44-404, and common law tort claims for breach of fiduciary duty and unfair competition.”

Miller v. Hehlen (2005) arizctapp · cites it 9× “” Trade secrets ¶ 27 Miller further contends “Hehlen’s actions violated Arizona’s Uniform Trade Secrets Act” (“the Act”), A.R.S. §§ 44-401 through 44-407, because he misappropriated her trade secrets through improper means.”

Joshua David Mellberg LLC v. Will (2015) azd · cites it 16× “§ 1030 (First Claim) against all Defendants; (2) violation of the Arizona Uniform Trade Secrets Act (“AUTSA”), A.R.S. § 44-401 et. seq., against all Defendants (Second Claim); (3) unfair competition against all Defendants (Third Claim); (4) breach of contract against Defendants…”

Enterprise Leasing Co. of Phoenix v. Ehmke (1999) arizctapp · cites it 11× “A.R.S. § 44-401. This rather expansive definition emphasizes the secrecy of the alleged trade secret, as well as the competitive advantage afforded by it.”

Orca Communications v. Ann Noder Et vir/pitch Public (2014) ariz · cites it 6× “¶ 1 Arizona’s Uniform Trade Secrets Act (“AUTSA”), AR.S. §§ 44-401 to -407, creates an exclusive cause of action — and displaces conflicting causes of action — for claims based on the misappropriation of trade secrets.”

Calisi v. Unified Financial Services, LLC (2013) arizctapp · cites it 6× “AR.S. § 44-401(4) (2003). In interpreting the UTSA, we are entitled to rely on common law principles in the absence of a conflict.”

Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. v. Keegan (2001) arizctapp · cites it 8× “In its brief, the amicus states: A competitor would have to see the technical manual, setting forth all of the research associated with the test, before it would gain any meaningful information for competitive test-building purposes; thus, merely seeing the specific items would…”

Modular Mining System, Inc. v. Jigsaw Technologies, Inc. (2009) arizctapp · cites it 3× “A.R.S. §§ 44-401 through 44-407. 2 . Modular previously had asserted additional allegations of misappropriation of trade secrets by Jigsaw, including that Jigsaw had misappropriated portions of Modular's source code.”

Building Innovation Industries, L.L.C. v. Onken (2007) azd · cites it 6× “See A.R.S. § 44-401. However, the claim may be so closely “intertwined” with a patent claim as to position it within the bounds of the fee statute.”

Unisource Worldwide, Inc. v. Swope (2013) azd · cites it 4× “A.R.S. § 44-401(2). To the extent that Plaintiff is arguing that Defendants used confidential information, customer lists or names, without consent to interfere with Plaintiffs customer relationships, the claim is one of misappropriation and is preempted.”

Compass Bank v. Hartley (2006) azd · cites it 2× “Other Counts Plaintiff alleges additional counts including breach of loyalty provisions, implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, violations of the Trade Secrets Act, A.R.S. § 44-401, Conversion, Tortious Interference with Contract, and Unjust Enrichment.”

FIRETRACE USA, LLC v. Jesclard (2010) azd · cites it 2× “BACKGROUND Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint alleging patent infringement, misappropriation of trade secrets in violation of the Arizona Uniform Trade Secrets Act (“AUTSA”), A.R.S. § 44-401 et seq., unfair competition, unjust enrichment, tortious interference with…”

Show all 74 citing cases →

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-401(1) — 4 cases

Miller v. Hehlen (2005) arizctapp “” Trade secrets ¶ 27 Miller further contends “Hehlen’s actions violated Arizona’s Uniform Trade Secrets Act” (“the Act”), A.R.S. §§ 44-401 through 44-407, because he misappropriated her trade secrets through improper means.”

Joshua David Mellberg LLC v. Will (2015) azd “§ 1030 (First Claim) against all Defendants; (2) violation of the Arizona Uniform Trade Secrets Act (“AUTSA”), A.R.S. § 44-401 et. seq., against all Defendants (Second Claim); (3) unfair competition against all Defendants (Third Claim); (4) breach of contract against Defendants…”

ReBath LLC v. Foothills Service Solutions Company (2021) azd

Miller v. Hehlen (2005) arizctapp

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-401(2) — 12 cases

Orca Communications v. Ann Noder Et vir/pitch Public (2014) ariz “¶ 1 Arizona’s Uniform Trade Secrets Act (“AUTSA”), AR.S. §§ 44-401 to -407, creates an exclusive cause of action — and displaces conflicting causes of action — for claims based on the misappropriation of trade secrets.”

Unisource Worldwide, Inc. v. Swope (2013) azd “A.R.S. § 44-401(2). To the extent that Plaintiff is arguing that Defendants used confidential information, customer lists or names, without consent to interfere with Plaintiffs customer relationships, the claim is one of misappropriation and is preempted.”

Building Innovation Industries, L.L.C. v. Onken (2007) azd “See A.R.S. § 44-401. However, the claim may be so closely “intertwined” with a patent claim as to position it within the bounds of the fee statute.”

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-401(2)(a) — 2 cases

Miller v. Hehlen (2005) arizctapp

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-401(2)(b)(ii) — 1 case

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-401(4) — 29 cases

Calisi v. Unified Financial Services, LLC (2013) arizctapp “AR.S. § 44-401(4) (2003). In interpreting the UTSA, we are entitled to rely on common law principles in the absence of a conflict.”

HTS, Inc. v. Boley (2013) azd “§ 1125 (a), misappropriation of trade secrets under the Arizona Uniform Trade Secrets Act, Ariz.Rev.Stat. § 44-401 to § 44-404, and common law tort claims for breach of fiduciary duty and unfair competition.”

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-401(4)(a) — 9 cases

Enterprise Leasing Co. of Phoenix v. Ehmke (1999) arizctapp “A.R.S. § 44-401. This rather expansive definition emphasizes the secrecy of the alleged trade secret, as well as the competitive advantage afforded by it.”

Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. v. Keegan (2001) arizctapp “In its brief, the amicus states: A competitor would have to see the technical manual, setting forth all of the research associated with the test, before it would gain any meaningful information for competitive test-building purposes; thus, merely seeing the specific items would…”

W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. GI Dynamics, Inc. (2012) azd

Mission Wellness Pharmacy LLC v. Caremark LLC (2022) azd

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-401(4)(b) — 5 cases

B2b CFO Partners, LLC v. Kaufman (2012) azd

State 48 Recycling Incorporated v. Janes (2022) azd

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.