A. Actual or threatened misappropriation may be enjoined. On application to the court, the court shall terminate an injunction if the trade secret has ceased to exist, but the court may continue the injunction 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 on payment of a reasonable royalty for no longer than the period of time for which the use could have been prohibited. Exceptional circumstances include, but are not limited to, a material and prejudicial change of position before 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.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
5
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 2005–2021 · leading case:
Miller v. Hehlen, 104 P.3d 193 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2005).
Miller v. Hehlen, 104 P.3d 193 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 2× “A.R.S. §§ 44-402(A) (“Actual or threatened misappropriation may be enjoined.”
Orca Commc'ns v. Ann Noder Et vir/pitch Pub., 337 P.3d 545 (Ariz. 2014).
· cites it 2× “Steiner, 148 Ariz. 314 , 316, 714 P.2d 807 , 809 (1986) (noting the general rule that attorney fees are not recoverable unless provided for by statute or contract).”
Unisource Worldwide, Inc. v. Swope, 964 F. Supp. 2d 1050 (D. Ariz. 2013).
“§ 44-402(A). If instead the plaintiff cannot establish the AUTSA violation because no provable misappropriation occurred, then the plaintiff would also not have been able to prove any claims based on that misappropriation; plaintiff has lost nothing when those claims are…”
Paul Johnson Drywall Inc. v. Sterling Grp. LP (D. Ariz. 2021).
· cites it 2× “) 10 In Count Two, entitled “Injunctive Relief,” Plaintiffs request an order “enjoining 11 Sterling: (a) from continuing to repudiate the NDA; (b) to perform its contractual 12 obligations under the NDA; (c) from using or distributing the Confidential Information 13 pursuant to…”
Miller v. Hehlen (Ariz. Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 2× “A.R.S. §§ 44-402(A) (“Actual or threatened misappropriation may be enjoined.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-402(A) — 3 cases
Miller v. Hehlen, 104 P.3d 193 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2005).
“A.R.S. §§ 44-402(A) (“Actual or threatened misappropriation may be enjoined.”
Unisource Worldwide, Inc. v. Swope, 964 F. Supp. 2d 1050 (D. Ariz. 2013).
“§ 44-402(A). If instead the plaintiff cannot establish the AUTSA violation because no provable misappropriation occurred, then the plaintiff would also not have been able to prove any claims based on that misappropriation; plaintiff has lost nothing when those claims are…”
Miller v. Hehlen (Ariz. Ct. App. 2005).
“A.R.S. §§ 44-402(A) (“Actual or threatened misappropriation may be enjoined.”
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.