O.C.G.A.
O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 10-1-766 (2019)

Limitation of action

✓ O.C.G.A. — 2019 edition (Public.Resource.Org Release 73)
Code text and O.C.G.A. statutory annotations on this page reflect the 2019 Official Code of Georgia Annotated (Public.Resource.Org Release 73, 2019-08-21; public domain per Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, 2020). The Syfert case-law annotations in Notes of Decisions, below, are current.
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section GA-LEGlegis.ga.gov (official) JustiaJustia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Statute text

An action for misappropriation must be brought within five years after the misappropriation is discovered or by the exercise of reasonable diligence should have been discovered. For the purposes of this Code section, a continuing misappropriation by any person constitutes a single claim against that person, but this Code section shall be applied separately to the claim against each person who receives a trade secret from another person who misappropriated that trade secret.

History

(Code 1981, § 10-1-766, enacted by Ga. L. 1990, p. 1560, § 1.)

Annotations

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

Mere suspicion of misappropriation of trade secrets insufficient. - Because: (1) the trial court erred in holding that mere suspicion of a possible misappropriation of an employer's trade secrets by one of the employer's former employees amounted to objectively reasonable notice sufficient to trigger the running of the statute; and (2) a fact issue existed as to whether the suspicions reflected in the employer's letters to the former employee's counsel were sufficient to cause a reasonable person to investigate whether its trade secrets had been misappropriated, the trial court erred in granting the former employee partial summary judgment on the basis of the five-year statute of limitations under O.C.G.A. § 10-1-766. Porex Corp. v. Haldopoulos, 284 Ga. App. 510, 644 S.E.2d 349 (2007), cert. denied, 2007 Ga. LEXIS 498 (Ga. 2007).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2007–2021 · leading case: Porex Corp. v. Haldopoulos, 644 S.E.2d 349 (Ga. Ct. App. 2007).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Porex Corp. v. Haldopoulos, 644 S.E.2d 349 (Ga. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 4× “OCGA § 10-1-766. Thus, the court concluded that Porex’s misappropriation claims filed in September 2005 were time-barred.”
Rivell v. Private Health Care Sys., Inc., 887 F. Supp. 2d 1277 (S.D. Ga. 2012). · cites it 2× “See O.C.G.A. § 10-1-766 (“An action for [trade secret] misappropriation must be brought within five years after the misappropriation is discovered or by the exercise of reasonable diligence should have been discovered.”
Kimberly-Clark Corp. v. Extrusion Grp., LLC (N.D. Ga. 2021). · cites it 2× “15 O.C.G.A. § 10-1-766. 16 O.C.G.A. § 9-3-24.”
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.