Syfert Injury Law Firm

Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation

Call Now: 904-383-7448
Florida Statute 688 | Lawyer Caselaw & Research
Link to State of Florida Official Statute
Statute is currently reporting as:
F.S. 688 Case Law from Google Scholar Google Search for Amendments to 688

The 2024 Florida Statutes

Title XXXIX
COMMERCIAL RELATIONS
Chapter 688
UNIFORM TRADE SECRETS ACT
View Entire Chapter
CHAPTER 688
CHAPTER 688
UNIFORM TRADE SECRETS ACT
688.001 Short title.
688.002 Definitions.
688.003 Injunctive relief.
688.004 Damages.
688.005 Attorney’s fees.
688.006 Preservation of secrecy.
688.007 Statute of limitations.
688.008 Effect on other law.
688.009 Uniformity of application and construction.
688.001 Short title.—Sections 688.001-688.009 may be cited as the “Uniform Trade Secrets Act.”
History.—s. 1, ch. 88-254.
688.002 Definitions.—As used in ss. 688.001-688.009, unless the context requires otherwise:
(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:
(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; or
(b) Disclosure or use of a trade secret of another without express or implied consent by a person who:
1. Used improper means to acquire knowledge of the trade secret; or
2. At the time of disclosure or use, knew or had reason to know that her or his knowledge of the trade secret was:
a. Derived from or through a person who had utilized improper means to acquire it;
b. Acquired under circumstances giving rise to a duty to maintain its secrecy or limit its use; or
c. Derived from or through a person who owed a duty to the person seeking relief to maintain its secrecy or limit its use; or
3. Before a material change of her or 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:
(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; and
(b) Is the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy.
History.—s. 2, ch. 88-254; s. 750, ch. 97-102.
688.003 Injunctive relief.—
(1) 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.
(2) 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.
(3) In appropriate circumstances, affirmative acts to protect a trade secret may be compelled by court order.
History.—s. 3, ch. 88-254.
688.004 Damages.—
(1) Except to the extent that a material and prejudicial change of position prior to acquiring knowledge or reason to know of misappropriation renders a monetary recovery inequitable, a complainant is entitled to recover damages for misappropriation. Damages can include both the actual loss caused by misappropriation and the unjust enrichment caused by misappropriation that is not taken into account in computing actual loss. In lieu of damages measured by any other methods, the damages caused by misappropriation may be measured by imposition of liability for a reasonable royalty for a misappropriator’s unauthorized disclosure or use of a trade secret.
(2) If willful and malicious misappropriation exists, the court may award exemplary damages in an amount not exceeding twice any award made under subsection (1).
History.—s. 4, ch. 88-254.
688.005 Attorney’s fees.—If a claim of misappropriation is made in bad faith, a motion to terminate an injunction is made or resisted in bad faith, or willful and malicious misappropriation exists, the court may award reasonable attorney’s fees to the prevailing party.
History.—s. 5, ch. 88-254.
688.006 Preservation of secrecy.—In an action under ss. 688.001-688.009, a court shall preserve the secrecy of an alleged trade secret by reasonable means, which may include granting protective orders in connection with discovery proceedings, holding in camera hearings, sealing the records of the action, and ordering any person involved in the litigation not to disclose an alleged trade secret without prior court approval.
History.—s. 6, ch. 88-254.
688.007 Statute of limitations.—An action for misappropriation must be brought within 3 years after the misappropriation is discovered or by the exercise of reasonable diligence should have been discovered. For the purposes of this section, a continuing misappropriation constitutes a single claim.
History.—s. 7, ch. 88-254.
688.008 Effect on other law.—
(1) Except as provided in subsection (2), ss. 688.001-688.009 displace conflicting tort, restitutory, and other law of this state providing civil remedies for misappropriation of a trade secret.
(2) This act does not affect:
(a) Contractual remedies, whether or not based upon misappropriation of a trade secret;
(b) Other civil remedies that are not based upon misappropriation of a trade secret; or
(c) Criminal remedies, whether or not based upon misappropriation of a trade secret.
History.—s. 8, ch. 88-254; s. 20, ch. 91-110.
688.009 Uniformity of application and construction.—Sections 688.001-688.009 shall be applied and construed to effectuate its general purpose to make uniform the law with respect to the subject of this act among states enacting it.
History.—s. 9, ch. 88-254.

F.S. 688 on Google Scholar

F.S. 688 on Casetext

Amendments to 688


Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 688
Level: Degree
Misdemeanor/Felony: First/Second/Third

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 688.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases Citing Statute 688

Total Results: 20

Flynn v. Wilson

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2024-12-11

Snippet: Commc'ns, Inc. v. Connaughton, 491 U.S. 657, 688 (1989))). "Putin employee

Baxter v. Baxter

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2024-12-04

Snippet: 6 so”); see also Lambert, 524 So. 2d at 688 (“[A]ppellant thought that the Dominican Republic

John F. Mosley v. State of Florida

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 2024-11-21

Snippet: hearing pursuant to Spencer v. State, 615 So. 2d 688 (Fla. 1993), and a new sentencing hearing.” Mosley

Safeco Insurance Company of Illinois v. Rebecca L. Heikka

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2024-11-06

Snippet: MasTec N. Am., Inc. v. Morakis, 288 So. 3d 685, 688 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019) (quoting Houghton v. Bond, 680

Safeco Insurance Company of Illinois v. Rebecca L. Heikka

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2024-11-06

Snippet: MasTec N. Am., Inc. v. Morakis, 288 So. 3d 685, 688 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019) (quoting Houghton v. Bond, 680

Leo L. Boatman v. State of Florida

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 2024-10-17

Snippet: beyond a 5. Spencer v. State, 615 So. 2d 688 (Fla. 1993). -

PAJ Investment Group, LLC v. El Lago N.W. 7th Condominium Association, Inc.

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2024-10-16

Snippet: appurtenant easement claimed.”); Newman v. Michel, 688 S.E.2d 610, 616–17 (W. Va. 2009) (“The main features

Jason A. Vera v. State of Florida

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2024-09-25

Snippet: truck distinguishes this case from Nelson v. State, 688 So. 2d 971 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997), cited by the State

Tyrone T. Johnson v. State of Florida

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 2024-09-19

Snippet: written: 6. Spencer v. State, 615 So. 2d 688 (Fla. 1993) (setting out a procedure that affords

Jordan Cayne Hutchinson v. State of Florida

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2024-09-18

Snippet: preserved for review. Pasha v. State, 225 So. 3d 688, 705 (Fla. 2017); Reynolds v. State, 934 So. 2d 1128

HOWARD DENNIS v. STATE OF FLORIDA

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2024-08-06

Snippet: ____ Case No. 6D2023-0688 Lower Tribunal Nos. CF18-804 and

Rauniel Quintero v. The State of Florida

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2024-07-31

Snippet: relationship to the offense.” Glaubius v. State, 688 So. 2d 913, 915 (Fla. 1997). “Where restitution

Jarvis Parker v. State of Florida

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2024-07-18

Snippet: Appellee. No. 4D2023-0688 [July 18, 2024]

Allen Ward Cox v. State of Florida

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 2024-07-11

Snippet: 92 (2016). 3. Spencer v. State, 615 So. 2d 688 (Fla. 1993). -4-

Tyrone T. Johnson v. State of Florida

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 2024-07-11

Snippet: written: 6. Spencer v. State, 615 So. 2d 688 (Fla. 1993) (setting out a procedure that affords

James Herard v. State of Florida

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 2024-07-03

Snippet: circumstances. 4 3. Spencer v. State, 615 So. 2d 688 (Fla. 1993). 4. The trial court found the following

STATE OF FLORIDA v. ANGEL ALEJANDRO LOBATO

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2024-05-31

Snippet: 2 See Spencer v. State, 615 So. 2d 688 (Fla. 1993). The purpose of a Spencer hearing is

Apex Roofing and Restoration, LLC a/a/o Nancy Forde v. Security First Insurance Company

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2024-05-31

Snippet: Id. Sections 688.002(4) and 812.081(1)(f), in turn, define “[t]rade secret.” See §§ 688.002(4), 812.081(1)(f)

Joseph William Hamilton v. State of Florida

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2024-05-29

Snippet: premeditated design.” See also Kilgore v. State, 688 So. 2d 895, 898 (Fla. 1996) (citing Spencer and stating

Latrice Pla v. Ashley Rierson

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2024-05-15

Snippet: MasTec N. Am., Inc. v. Morakis, 288 So. 3d 685, 688 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019) (citations and quotations omitted)