Syfert Injury Law Firm

Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation

Call Now: 904-383-7448

2018 Georgia Code 10-1-762 | Car Wreck Lawyer

Link to State of Georgia Official Statute 2018 Georgia Code Annotated (sourced from legal.resource.org)
O.C.G.A. 10-1-762 Case Law from Google Scholar Amendments to OCGA 10-1-762

TITLE 10 COMMERCE AND TRADE

Section 1. Selling and Other Trade Practices, 10-1-1 through 10-1-915.

ARTICLE 27 TRADE SECRETS

10-1-762. 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 appropriate circumstances for reasons including, but not limited to, an elimination of commercial advantage that otherwise would be derived from the misappropriation or where the trade secret ceases to exist due to the fault of the enjoined party or others by improper means.
  2. In exceptional circumstances, if the court determines that it would be unreasonable to prohibit future use, 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.
  4. In no event shall a contract be required in order to maintain an action or to obtain injunctive relief for misappropriation of a trade secret.

(Code 1981, §10-1-762, enacted by Ga. L. 1990, p. 1560, § 1.)

Law reviews.

- For article, "Application of the 'Inevitable Disclosure' Doctrine in Georgia," see 4 Ga. St. B. J. 58 (1999). For article, "Georgia's Constitutional Scheme for State Appellate Jurisdiction," see 6 Ga. St. B. J. 24 (2001).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

Out-of-state order prohibiting unprivileged testimony.

- Michigan order, by facially prohibiting former corporate litigation consultant from testifying as to matters outside the scope of any privilege, violated Georgia public policy; therefore, the full faith and credit clause did not require the federal district court in Georgia to give full effect to the Michigan court order. Williams v. GMC, 147 F.R.D. 270 (S.D. Ga. 1993).

Permanent injunction appropriate.

- After a company in the cable and wire industry developed a logistics system that constituted a trade secret, it was proper to issue a permanent injunction prohibiting a former employee of the company from working in the logistics department of a competitor for five years, or sooner if the competitor independently develops the competitor's own system. Essex Group, Inc. v. Southwire Co., 269 Ga. 553, 501 S.E.2d 501 (1998).

Royalty injunction appropriate.

- Trial court did not abuse the court's discretion in imposing a royalty injunction after making findings as to the public's interest in competition, plaintiff's delays in bringing the matter to resolution, and the adequacy of a royalty to protect the parties' respective interests. Electronic Data Sys. Corp. v. Heinemann, 268 Ga. 755, 493 S.E.2d 132 (1997).

Injunction blocking use of misappropriated trade secret appropriate.

- Non-compete clause in a Software Agreement between an employer and employee was unenforceable as a restraint of trade under Ga. Const. 1983, Art. III, Sec. VI, Para. V(c), because it was unlimited as to time and territory. However, under O.C.G.A. § 10-1-762(d), the employee was prohibited from using a software version that incorporated the employer's trade secrets and confidential information, regardless of the non-compete clause. Coleman v. Retina Consultants, P.C., 286 Ga. 317, 687 S.E.2d 457 (2009).

Inevitable disclosure doctrine.

- Inevitable disclosure doctrine is not an independent claim under which a trial court may enjoin an employee from working for an employer or disclosing trade secrets. Holton v. Physician Oncology Servs., LP, 292 Ga. 864, 742 S.E.2d 702 (2013).

Interlocutory injunction inappropriate.

- Trial court erred, in part, by ordering an interlocutory injunction prohibiting a former employee from working in an executive capacity for a particular competitor of the former employer for one year based on the inevitable disclosure doctrine because a stand-alone claim under the doctrine, untethered from the provisions of Georgia's trade secret statute, O.C.G.A. § 10-1-760 et seq., was not cognizable in Georgia. Holton v. Physician Oncology Servs., LP, 292 Ga. 864, 742 S.E.2d 702 (2013).

Cited in CMAX/Cleveland, Inc. v. UCR, Inc., 804 F. Supp. 337 (M.D. Ga. 1992); Camp Creek Hospitality Inns, Inc. v. Sheraton Franchise Corp., 130 F.3d 1009 (11th Cir. 1997).

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Applicability to state trade secrets.

- State entity contending that information requested pursuant to the Open Records Act, § 50-18-70 et seq., constitutes a trade secret to another, may exercise the entity's rights to protect the information under O.C.G.A. § 10-1-762. 1994 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 94-15.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

ALR.

- Applicability of inevitable disclosure doctrine barring employment of competitor's former employee, 36 A.L.R.6th 537.

Cases Citing O.C.G.A. § 10-1-762

Total Results: 6  |  Sort by: Relevance  |  Newest First

Copy

Essex Grp., Inc. v. Southwire Co., 501 S.E.2d 501 (Ga. 1998).

Cited 33 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Jun 29, 1998 | 269 Ga. 553, 98 Fulton County D. Rep. 2210

...*506 (c) Finally, although the superior court enjoined Essex for five years, it made provision in its order and through the verification process to accommodate Essex's independent development of its own logistics system. The injunctive relief ordered is thus consistent with OCGA § 10-1-762(a), which provides that "an injunction shall be terminated when the trade secret has ceased to exist." See also Thomas v....
Copy

Holton v. Physician Oncology Servs., 292 Ga. 864 (Ga. 2013).

Cited 28 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | May 6, 2013 | 742 S.E.2d 702, 2013 Fulton County D. Rep. 1454, 107 U.S.P.Q. 2d (BNA) 2065, 37 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 390

...ohibits the actual or threatened misappropriation of trade secrets by a person who acquires knowledge of the trade secret “under circumstances giving rise to a duty to maintain its secrecy or limit its use.” OCGA §§ 10-1-761 (2) (B) (ii) (II), 10-1-762....
Copy

Elec. Data Sys. Corp. v. Heinemann, 493 S.E.2d 132 (Ga. 1997).

Cited 25 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Nov 3, 1997 | 268 Ga. 755

...injunction. Even if it had, we are not persuaded that such a provision *135 should divest the trial court of all discretion in fashioning relief. [6] 3. Rather than imposing a prohibitive injunction banning the sale of PowerPlant and PowerTax under O.C.G.A. § 10-1-762(a), the trial court imposed a "royalty injunction" under O.C.G.A. § 10-1-762(b). O.C.G.A. § 10-1-762(b) provides that in "exceptional circumstances" the trial court may condition the future use of a trade secret on payment of a reasonable royalty....
...EDS expressly declined to have the jury clarify its inconsistent verdict. From the jury's finding of no damages, the trial court could have concluded that all commercial advantage of the misappropriation had evaporated and denied any injunctive relief under O.C.G.A. § 10-1-762(a)....
Copy

Smith v. Mid-State Nurses, Inc., 403 S.E.2d 789 (Ga. 1991).

Cited 16 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | May 9, 1991 | 261 Ga. 208

...(hereafter Peachstate). Smith worked for appellee for approximately three years until she left to join Long, who had formed a competing agency, Peachstate. Appellee then filed suit, and among other relief sought an interlocutory injunction pursuant to OCGA § 10-1-762(a) to enjoin alleged misappropriation of trade secrets by appellants....
...tered nurses or licensed practical nurses with whom [Smith] worked while employed by the plaintiff." The court made no findings or conclusions in support of the judgment. We conclude that the court erred by imposing an interlocutory injunction. OCGA § 10-1-762(a) provides that "[a]ctual or *790 threatened misappropriation may be enjoined." The term "misappropriation," as defined by OCGA § 10-1-761(2), means the acquisition, disclosure, or use under specified circumstances of a "trade secret."...
Copy

Coleman v. Retina Consultants, P.C., 687 S.E.2d 457 (Ga. 2009).

Cited 15 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Nov 9, 2009 | 286 Ga. 317, 2010 Fulton County D. Rep. 6

...arketing the Clinex-RE package, that is, Clinex as integrated with Clinex-RE. Indeed, in Georgia, "[i]n no event shall a contract be required in order to maintain an action or to obtain injunctive relief for misappropriation of a trade secret." OCGA § 10-1-762(d)....
Copy

Leo Publications, Inc. v. Reid, 458 S.E.2d 651 (Ga. 1995).

Cited 9 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Jul 10, 1995 | 265 Ga. 561

...t trade secrets. Nevertheless, the court ordered Reid to return the original list to Leo if it was in her possession. 1. The Georgia Trade Secrets Act of 1990 provides that actual or threatened misappropriation of trade secrets may be enjoined. OCGA § 10-1-762(a)....