ILCS » Chapter 765 · Act 1065

765 ILCS 1065/2

As used in this Act, unless the context requires otherwise:     (a) "Improper means" includes theft, bribery, misrepresentation, breach or inducement of a breach of a confidential relationship or other duty to maintain secrecy or limit use, or espionage through electronic or other means

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IL-ILGAilga.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(765 ILCS 1065/2) (from Ch. 140, par. 352)
    Sec. 2. As used in this Act, unless the context requires otherwise:
    (a) "Improper means" includes theft, bribery, misrepresentation, breach or inducement of a breach of a confidential relationship or other duty to maintain secrecy or limit use, or espionage through electronic or other means. Reverse engineering or independent development shall not be considered improper means.
    (b) "Misappropriation" means:
    (1) acquisition of a trade secret of a person by another person who knows or has reason to know that the trade secret was acquired by improper means; or
    (2) disclosure or use of a trade secret of a person without express or implied consent by another person who:
    (A) used improper means to acquire knowledge of the trade secret; or
    (B) at the time of disclosure or use, knew or had reason to know that knowledge of the trade secret was:
    (I) derived from or through a person who utilized improper means to acquire it;
    (II) acquired under circumstances giving rise to a duty to maintain its secrecy or limit its use; or
    (III) derived from or through a person who owed a duty to the person seeking relief to maintain its secrecy or limit its use; or
    (C) before a material change of 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.
    (c) "Person" means a natural person, corporation, business trust, estate, trust, partnership, association, joint venture, government, governmental subdivision or agency, or any other for-profit or not-for-profit legal entity.
    (d) "Trade secret" means information, including but not limited to, technical or non-technical data, a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique, drawing, process, financial data, or list of actual or potential customers or suppliers, that:
    (1) is sufficiently secret to derive economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use; and
    (2) is the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy or confidentiality.
(Source: P.A. 85-366.)

    
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 130 cases (28 in the last 5 years), 1993–2026 · leading case: Liebert Corp. v. Mazur
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Liebert Corp. v. Mazur (2005) illappct · cites it 18× “According to the ITSA, misappropriation by "`improper means' includes theft, bribery, misrepresentation, breach or inducement of a breach of a confidential relationship or other duty to maintain secrecy or limit use, or espionage through electronic or other means.”
Stenstrom Petroleum Services Group Inc. v. Mesch (2007) illappct · cites it 6× “” 765 ILCS 1065/2(d) (West 2004). Thus, a plaintiff must meet two requirements to show that its information is a trade secret under the Act.”
Alpha School Bus Co., Inc. v. Wagner (2009) illappct · cites it 3× “” 765 ILCS 1065/2(d) (West 2006). In addition, section 8 of the Trade Secrets Act provides in pertinent part as follows: “(a) Except as provided in subsection (b), this Act is intended to displace conflicting tort, restitutionary, unfair competition, and other laws of this State…”
Thomas & Betts Corp. v. Panduit Corp. (2000) ilnd · cites it 7× “Furthermore, the ITSA defines misappropriation to include acquisition by “theft, bribery, misrepresentation, breach or inducement of a breach of a confidential relationship or other duty to maintain secrecy or limit use, or espionage through electronic or other means.”
J.S.T. Corporation v. Foxconn Interconnect Technolog (2020) ca7 · cites it 2× “765 ILCS 1065/2(b).1 The knowing acquisition, disclosure, and use of a secret are all actions that can be completed long before an of- fending product ever comes into contact with a consumer.”
System Development Services, Inc. v. Haarmann (2009) illappct · cites it 5× “See 765 ILCS 1065/2(b) (West 2006). CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the judgment of the circuit court of Effingham County.”
MJ & Partners Restaurant Ltd. Partnership v. Zadikoff (1998) ilnd · cites it 5× “” 765 ILCS 1065/2; see, e.g., Brostron v. Warmann, 190 Ill.”
United States Gypsum Co. v. Lafarge North America, Inc. (2007) ilnd · cites it 4× “765 ILCS 1065/2(b). “Improper means” is defined as including “theft, bribery, misrepresentation, breach or inducement of a breach of a confidential relationship or other duty to maintain secrecy or limit use, or espionage through electronic or other means.”
UTStarcom, Inc. v. Starent Networks, Corp. (2009) ilnd · cites it 6× “1992) (citing 765 ILCS 1065/2). *865 a. Likelihood of Success: Trade Secrets The ITSA defines a trade secret as: Information including but not limited to, technical or non-technical data, a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique, drawing, process,…”
Life Spine, Inc. v. Aegis Spine, Inc. (2021) ca7 “765 ILCS 1065/2(d). Under both statutes, whether information qualifies as a trade secret is a question of fact that “requires an ad hoc evaluation of all the surrounding circumstances.”
Thermodyne Food Service Products, Inc. v. McDonald's Corp. (1996) ilnd · cites it 5× “” 765 ILCS 1065/2(a). Thus, if Specialty Equipment “knew or had reason to know” that Liebermann was breaching a duty to maintain the confidentiality or secrecy of the Thermodyne technology when he revealed such, Specialty Equipment is liable for the misappropriation.”
Seng-Tiong Ho v. Taflove (2011) ca7 · cites it 2× “See 765 ILCS 1065/2(a), (b). A claim of trade secret misappropriation, then, requires that the information have a status of secrecy and that a confidential relationship be breached.”
Show all 130 citing cases →
— 765 ILCS 1065/2(a) — 18 cases
Thomas & Betts Corp. v. Panduit Corp. (2000) ilnd “Furthermore, the ITSA defines misappropriation to include acquisition by “theft, bribery, misrepresentation, breach or inducement of a breach of a confidential relationship or other duty to maintain secrecy or limit use, or espionage through electronic or other means.”
Liebert Corp. v. Mazur (2005) illappct “According to the ITSA, misappropriation by "`improper means' includes theft, bribery, misrepresentation, breach or inducement of a breach of a confidential relationship or other duty to maintain secrecy or limit use, or espionage through electronic or other means.”
Seng-Tiong Ho v. Taflove (2011) ca7 “See 765 ILCS 1065/2(a), (b). A claim of trade secret misappropriation, then, requires that the information have a status of secrecy and that a confidential relationship be breached.”
Higher Gear Group, Inc. v. Rockenbach Chevrolet Sales, Inc. (2002) ilnd
First Health Group Corp. v. National Prescription Administrators, Inc. (2001) pamd
— 765 ILCS 1065/2(b) — 24 cases
Liebert Corp. v. Mazur (2005) illappct “According to the ITSA, misappropriation by "`improper means' includes theft, bribery, misrepresentation, breach or inducement of a breach of a confidential relationship or other duty to maintain secrecy or limit use, or espionage through electronic or other means.”
J.S.T. Corporation v. Foxconn Interconnect Technolog (2020) ca7 “765 ILCS 1065/2(b).1 The knowing acquisition, disclosure, and use of a secret are all actions that can be completed long before an of- fending product ever comes into contact with a consumer.”
Pepsico, Inc., a Corporation v. William E. Redmond, Jr., and the Quaker Oats Company, a Corporation (1995) ca7
Thermodyne Food Service Products, Inc. v. McDonald's Corp. (1996) ilnd “” 765 ILCS 1065/2(a). Thus, if Specialty Equipment “knew or had reason to know” that Liebermann was breaching a duty to maintain the confidentiality or secrecy of the Thermodyne technology when he revealed such, Specialty Equipment is liable for the misappropriation.”
United States Gypsum Co. v. Lafarge North America, Inc. (2007) ilnd “765 ILCS 1065/2(b). “Improper means” is defined as including “theft, bribery, misrepresentation, breach or inducement of a breach of a confidential relationship or other duty to maintain secrecy or limit use, or espionage through electronic or other means.”
— 765 ILCS 1065/2(b)(1) — 4 cases
Liebert Corp. v. Mazur (2005) illappct “According to the ITSA, misappropriation by "`improper means' includes theft, bribery, misrepresentation, breach or inducement of a breach of a confidential relationship or other duty to maintain secrecy or limit use, or espionage through electronic or other means.”
Ocean Tomo, LLC v. PatentRatings, LLC (2019) illinoised
TF Global Markets (Aust) Limited v. Sorenson (2023) ilnd
Hilco Diligence Services, LLC v. Sikich, LLC (2025) ilnd
— 765 ILCS 1065/2(b)(2) — 3 cases
Liebert Corp. v. Mazur (2005) illappct “According to the ITSA, misappropriation by "`improper means' includes theft, bribery, misrepresentation, breach or inducement of a breach of a confidential relationship or other duty to maintain secrecy or limit use, or espionage through electronic or other means.”
Thomas & Betts Corp. v. Panduit Corp. (2000) ilnd “Furthermore, the ITSA defines misappropriation to include acquisition by “theft, bribery, misrepresentation, breach or inducement of a breach of a confidential relationship or other duty to maintain secrecy or limit use, or espionage through electronic or other means.”
Mangren Research and Development Corporation v. National Chemical Company, Incorporated, and National Mold Release Compa (1996) ca7
— 765 ILCS 1065/2(b)(2)(B) — 2 cases
United States Gypsum Co. v. Lafarge North America, Inc. (2007) ilnd “765 ILCS 1065/2(b). “Improper means” is defined as including “theft, bribery, misrepresentation, breach or inducement of a breach of a confidential relationship or other duty to maintain secrecy or limit use, or espionage through electronic or other means.”
Nucap Industries Inc. v. Robert Bosch LLC (2019) ilnd
— 765 ILCS 1065/2(b)(2)(B)(II) — 3 cases
Morris Silverman Management Corp. v. Western Union Financial Services, Inc. (2003) ilnd
Hexacomb Corp. v. GTW Enterprises, Inc. (1993) ilnd
Parus Holdings, Inc. v. Banner & Witcoff, Ltd. (2008) ilnd
— 765 ILCS 1065/2(b)(2)(B)(III) — 1 case
United States Gypsum Co. v. Lafarge North America, Inc. (2007) ilnd “765 ILCS 1065/2(b). “Improper means” is defined as including “theft, bribery, misrepresentation, breach or inducement of a breach of a confidential relationship or other duty to maintain secrecy or limit use, or espionage through electronic or other means.”
— 765 ILCS 1065/2(b)(l) — 2 cases
Liebert Corp. v. Mazur (2005) illappct “According to the ITSA, misappropriation by "`improper means' includes theft, bribery, misrepresentation, breach or inducement of a breach of a confidential relationship or other duty to maintain secrecy or limit use, or espionage through electronic or other means.”
Thermodyne Food Service Products, Inc. v. McDonald's Corp. (1996) ilnd “” 765 ILCS 1065/2(a). Thus, if Specialty Equipment “knew or had reason to know” that Liebermann was breaching a duty to maintain the confidentiality or secrecy of the Thermodyne technology when he revealed such, Specialty Equipment is liable for the misappropriation.”
— 765 ILCS 1065/2(d) — 93 cases
Alpha School Bus Co., Inc. v. Wagner (2009) illappct “” 765 ILCS 1065/2(d) (West 2006). In addition, section 8 of the Trade Secrets Act provides in pertinent part as follows: “(a) Except as provided in subsection (b), this Act is intended to displace conflicting tort, restitutionary, unfair competition, and other laws of this State…”
Stenstrom Petroleum Services Group Inc. v. Mesch (2007) illappct “” 765 ILCS 1065/2(d) (West 2004). Thus, a plaintiff must meet two requirements to show that its information is a trade secret under the Act.”
Life Spine, Inc. v. Aegis Spine, Inc. (2021) ca7 “765 ILCS 1065/2(d). Under both statutes, whether information qualifies as a trade secret is a question of fact that “requires an ad hoc evaluation of all the surrounding circumstances.”
Liebert Corp. v. Mazur (2005) illappct “According to the ITSA, misappropriation by "`improper means' includes theft, bribery, misrepresentation, breach or inducement of a breach of a confidential relationship or other duty to maintain secrecy or limit use, or espionage through electronic or other means.”
MJ & Partners Restaurant Ltd. Partnership v. Zadikoff (1998) ilnd “” 765 ILCS 1065/2; see, e.g., Brostron v. Warmann, 190 Ill.”
— 765 ILCS 1065/2(d)(1) — 9 cases
Liebert Corp. v. Mazur (2005) illappct “According to the ITSA, misappropriation by "`improper means' includes theft, bribery, misrepresentation, breach or inducement of a breach of a confidential relationship or other duty to maintain secrecy or limit use, or espionage through electronic or other means.”
Multiut Corp. v. Draiman (2005) illappct
Am. Ctr. for Excellence in Surgical Assisting Inc. v. Cmty. Coll. Dist. 502 (2018) illinoised
Hazlitt v. Apple Inc. (2025) ilsd
American Center for Excellence in Surgical Assisting Inc. v. Community College District 502 (2018) ilnd
— 765 ILCS 1065/2(d)(2) — 10 cases
Liebert Corp. v. Mazur (2005) illappct “According to the ITSA, misappropriation by "`improper means' includes theft, bribery, misrepresentation, breach or inducement of a breach of a confidential relationship or other duty to maintain secrecy or limit use, or espionage through electronic or other means.”
Hecny Transportation, Inc., Cross-Appellee v. George Chu, and Daisy Chu, Platinum International Logistics, Inc., and Wil (2005) ca7
Stenstrom Petroleum Services Group Inc. v. Mesch (2007) illappct “” 765 ILCS 1065/2(d) (West 2004). Thus, a plaintiff must meet two requirements to show that its information is a trade secret under the Act.”
Fire 'Em Up, Inc. v. Technocarb Equipment (2004) Ltd. (2011) ilnd
Learning Curve Toys, Inc. v. Playwood Toys, Inc. (2003) ca7
— 765 ILCS 1065/2(d)(l) — 5 cases
System Development Services, Inc. v. Haarmann (2009) illappct “See 765 ILCS 1065/2(b) (West 2006). CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the judgment of the circuit court of Effingham County.”
Liebert Corp. v. Mazur (2005) illappct “According to the ITSA, misappropriation by "`improper means' includes theft, bribery, misrepresentation, breach or inducement of a breach of a confidential relationship or other duty to maintain secrecy or limit use, or espionage through electronic or other means.”
Stenstrom Petroleum Services Group Inc. v. Mesch (2007) illappct “” 765 ILCS 1065/2(d) (West 2004). Thus, a plaintiff must meet two requirements to show that its information is a trade secret under the Act.”
Combined Metals of Chicago Ltd. Partnership v. Airtek, Inc. (1997) ilnd
Triumph Packaging Group v. Ward (2011) ilnd
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.